Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock, after the Adjournment on Friday, 24th August, for the Summer Recess.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MEMBERS SWORN

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

Sir Thomas Lionel Dugdale, Baronet, for the County of York, North Riding (Richmond Division).

Sir David Robertson, for the Borough of Wandsworth (Streatham Division).

WRITS ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT

Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had issued, during the Adjournment, Warrants for new Writs, namely:

For the Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne, in the room of the Right honourable Sir William Allen Jowitt, K.C., called up to the House of Peers;

For the Burgh of Edinburgh (East Division), in the room of the Right honourable Frederick William Pethick-Lawrence, called up to the House of Peers;

For the Borough of Smethwick, in the room of Alfred James Dobbs, esquire, deceased;

For the County of Monmouth (Monmouth Division), in the room of Leslie Ruthven Pym, esquire, deceased.

MESSAGE FROM PERUVIAN CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES

Mr. Speaker: I desire to inform the House that I have received the following message from the President of the Peruvian Chamber of Deputies:
I have much pleasure in informing you that the Chamber over which I preside unanimously approved the following motion at its inaugural session. The Chamber of Deputies of Peru expresses its satisfaction to the British people for the democratic victory which they have obtained in the recent elections which is of far reaching importance for humanity in its struggle for the advent of a free and just socialist order.
(signed)

FERNANDO LEON DE VIVERO, PRESIDENT,

CARLOS MANUEL COX AND AUGUSTO DURANP, SECRETARIES."

To this I have sent a suitable reply.

Hon Members: Hear, hear.

MESSAGE FROM EGYPTIAN CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES

Mr. Speaker: I have also received a cablegram from the President of the Egyptian Chamber of Deputies conveying congratulations, in the name of the Egyptian people, on the victory over Japan; to which I have also sent a suitable reply.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: Owing to the reversion to the pre-war practice of having Questions on Mondays, it has been necessary to issue a new order of Questions, which was circulated to Members last Saturday. Members would, therefore, be well advised to study the Order Book and find out on which day their Questions appear. So long as the present number of Questions continue to be put down—over 700 have been handed in during the Recess—no list is likely to give complete satisfaction, but I hope Members will be willing to give the new list a fair trial.

BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (MR. SPEAKER'S VISIT)

Mr. Speaker: I should like to inform the House that during the Recess I accepted an invitation from Air Chief Marshal Sir Sholto Douglas, Commander-in-Chief, British Air Force of Occupation, to visit Germany. I had the opportunity of seeing the effects on such towns as Cologne and Berlin, as well as on Kiel Harbour, of the bombing by the Royal Air Force. I also had the pleasure of meeting many distinguished officers and other ranks who are still on duty in Germany. I am sure the House will appreciate the courtesy of this invitation to its Speaker and approve my having accepted it.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Petrol (Stocks and Rationing)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he proposes to take, in view of the inconvenience suffered by the public through petrol rationing, to relax and later discontinue this control.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when petrol rationing will cease.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the fact that statistics with regard to stocks of petroleum are freely issued in America and were

available, so far as this country is concerned, to the late Government, he can now make arrangements for the immediate publication of figures regarding British stocks; and, if not, on what grounds of military security the withholding of them is still justified

16 and 17. Mr. Turner-Samuels: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) what are the stocks of petrol in the country today; and how do these stocks compare with those held in September, 1938;
(2) what percentage of our petrol comes from the Persian Gulf and Trinidad, which are both in the sterling area; whether these supplies are enough for our needs; and whether we are still dependent for a portion of our supply on the United States.

19. Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is now able to make a statement with regard to the abolition of the restrictions on the sale of petrol..

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): I have now reviewed the question of petrol rationing. Contrary to suggestions which have been made that stocks of petrol in this country are high, the stock position is not satisfactory. Allowing for the present lower level of military requirements the stocks of petrol available for civil consumption at 27th September amounted to 450,000 tons. This is about 40 per cent. of the corresponding stocks held at the end of December, 1938. At the present time there is considerable uncertainty regarding future supplies due to conditions in the U.S.A., from which the bulk of our current supplies has to be obtained.
In considering this question of relaxations in this country it is necessary to bear in mind also the position in other parts of the Commonwealth, where measures for the conservation of petrol supplies have also been taken during the war and which would be affected if we made any relaxation here.
Under conditions which have obtained until recently only negligible quantities of petrol have been brought to this country from sterling sources, including Trinidad and the Persian Gulf. These supplies have been used, in order to conserve tanker tonnage, in areas nearer to the sources of, supply than the United Kingdom. In any


event the petrol produced from sterling sources is insufficient to meet the needs of the sterling area. The deficiency can only be met by the purchase of oil from dollar sources; at present the dollar expenditure is very considerable and we must seek to reduce it.
In order to move the quantities of petroleum products which are produced from British controlled sources, we have not sufficient tanker tonnage under the British flag to meet our requirements. We are thus involved, not only in purchasing large quantities of oil products from dollar sources, but in having to pay dollar freights in regard to a material proportion of the tanker tonnage required.
This is why in present circumstances it is not possible to abolish petrol rationing, or to increase the ration at present.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will cause considerable disappointment, and will he assure the House that he will bear in mind the pressing nature of this question and do everything in his power to explore any sources which may give increased supplies?

Mr. Shinwell: I can give that assurance. Nobody is more disappointed than I am at being unable to abolish petrol rationing. It is very costly. The organisation is very comprehensive in character, and I should be glad to bring it to an end. I can assure the hon. Member that as soon as supplies are available petrol rationing will be terminated.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the facts he has just given were known to the Government when they decided to reduce the price of petrol in this country?

Mr. Shinwell: Petrol rationing is a distinctive question with nothing whatever to do with the price level. We found ourselves in a position to reduce the price of petrol, and it would have been most injudicious not to have done so.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can tell us—if not now, if I put a Question down will he do so?—where the greatly increased supplies from the Persian Gulf are going; and further, whether, in view of his decision not to let us off petrol rationing, he proposes to take any steps to stop the ever-increasing black market in petrol?

Mr. Shinwell: If my hon. Friend cares to put down a Question at any time, I shall do all I can to furnish an answer.

Squadron-Leader Donner: Is the Minister aware of the statement of his predecessor that it would only require one extra tanker a week to double the petrol ration in this country?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not unaware of that.

Mr. De la Bère: Is this not very unsatisfactory?

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the present rationing of petrol is the cause of an extensive black market in this commodity; and what steps does he propose to take about this.

Mr. Shinwell: It is impossible under any system of rationing to secure that no irregularities occur. If, however, the lion. Member can furnish any specific evidence in regard to black market operations, I should be glad to receive it.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this racket is very widely practised and a great many cars appear to be averaging about 200 miles to the gallon?

Mr. Shinwell: We keep a very close watch on the situation and when we receive evidence that can be substantiated we refer the matter to the proper authorities, but if the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has any information I would like to have it.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that in almost every town every motorist, without exception, knows where he can get black market petrol, and do not his officers also have the same information?

Mr. Shinwell: That is obviously information that ought to be conveyed to me.

Miners (Coal Allocation)

Major John White: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in view of the shortage of coal for domestic purposes that will arise in the winter, he will make the necessary arrangements with the representatives of the mine owners and mine workers for a temporary cessation of the issue of coal free or at special rates to mine workers, the said mine workers to be given the same allocation of coal as other


domestic consumers and cash payments to be made in lieu of the additional tonnage at present received by them.

Mr. Shinwell: The tonnage of coal to which mine workers are entitled free or at concessional rates is governed by agreements in the various districts, some of which include provision for cash payments to be made in lieu of coal voluntarily surrendered. I have impressed upon the two sides in the industry the desirability of extending arrangements of this kind so that further savings in coal consumption may be encouraged.

Major White: Does not the Minister feel that the 4,500,000 tons of coal now required to meet the requirements of miners could and should be distributed at a suitable time over a wider field?

Mr. Shinwell: That is a question that I would like to see on the Paper.

Mr. George Griffiths: Does not the Minister know that this cheaper price of coal to the miner is shown in the tonnage price list and he pays for it every week out of his wages?

Mr. Shinwell: I have indicated that these matters are subject to agreements.

Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether miners' households are also allowed as members of the public to buy coal at ordinary rates?

Mr. Shinwell: Under the agreement, coal is provided in certain cases; where it is not so provided, they come under the ordinary arrangements.

Electricity and Gas Supplies

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the electric power companies had set aside £100,000,000 sterling for post-war expansion, but that the Government's proposals for nationalisation in this industry have created an uncertainty which is unfavourable to industrial expansion; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that cheap electric power is made available at the earliest possible date in all rural areas.

Mr. Shinwell: I am aware that many electricity supply undertakings have prepared schemes for post-war development. In considering the re-organisation of the electricity supply industry, I shall not overlook these schemes nor the necessity

of improving electricity supplies in the rural areas.

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the one thing to be avoided at all costs is the dislocation of the supply of electricity to rural areas, which was the danger foreseen both by the McGowan and by the Cooper Committees?

Mr. Shinwell: That matter is very present to my mind.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is yet in a position to state the policy of His Majesty's Government on electricity supply reorganisation in view of the declared intention of the Government to introduce a plan for the co-ordination of the fuel and power industries.

Mr. Shinwell: I hope to make a statement on this matter in the near future.

Summer-time Abolition

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the estimated additional consumption of fuel due to the fact that street and domestic lighting will have to be turned on one hour earlier each day after the abolition of summer time.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member will appreciate that with the abolition of summer time lights will be turned out one hour earlier in the morning. On the whole, however, there will be some additional consumption because there is greater activity in the evening than in the morning hours affected, but I cannot give any definite figure.

Captain Gammans: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the first part of his answer certainly does not refer to October and the beginning of November—it may be to December and January—and does he not feel that every effort should be made to save coal at a time when a lot of people will not have any coal at all this winter?

Mr. Shinwell: I would not like to agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that a lot of people will not have coal this winter.

American Domestic Heating (Report)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when he proposes to


publish the report of the working party sent to America some time ago to inquire into, and report upon, coal utilisation methods there.

Mr. Shinwell: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to a recent visit to the U.S.A. by three officials of my Ministry and of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to study domestic heating methods. This report, which was designed primarily for official purposes, is somewhat long, and is not in a form suitable for publication. But I am considering, in consultation with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research whether it would be practicable to prepare a summary for publication.

Coal Exports (Spain)

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what quantity of coal was exported to Spain from this country during 1944; and how much has been exported during 1945.

Mr. Shinwell: The quantity of coal exported to Spain in the year 1944 was 10,605 tons, and in the first eight months of 1945 it was 18,876 tons. This coal was of low quality and of little use in this country. In future figures of coal exports will be shown in detail in the Trade and Navigation Accounts published quarterly.

Coke (Prices)

Captain Bullock: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the present controlled price for coke, and what is the basis on which this controlled price is decided.

Mr. Shinwell: There is no single controlled price for coke, as retail and wholesale prices for gas and hard coke vary in different parts of the country according to the prices ruling before the war, the quality of coke sold and the distance of the point of consumption from the point of production. Generally, the present price in any area is the pre-war price plus the national increases authorised by my Ministry from time to time to take account of increases in the price of coal.

Oral Answers to Questions — ETHIOPIA (OIL AGREEMENT)

Captain Gammans: asked the Minis- of Fuel and Power if His Majesty's Government was consulted by the Emperor of Abyssinia before an exclusive oil

monopoly was granted by him to an American company..

1. Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if His Majesty's Government were consulted before the Abyssinian oil concession was sold to an American syndicate.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has any statement to make with regard to the recent agreement for the exploitation of oil resources between the United States of America and Ethiopia.

Mr. Shinwell: I have no detailed information regarding the agreement referred to, which, according to Press reports, is not between the Governments of the U.S.A. and Ethiopia, but between the Government of Ethiopia and an American Oil Company. His Majesty's Government were not consulted in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION

Release Groups (Numbers)

Viscount Hinching brooke: asked the Minister of Labour what are the numbers in each release group in each of the services, sub-divided into main categories; and what is the total strength of the different arms and branches of the services in each theatre of war.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I will circulate in the Official Reportas soon as possible a statement giving the numbers in each of the first 50 release groups in each of the Services. In view of the amount of work involved, I do not feel justified in asking the Service Departments to sub-divide these figures. As regards the second part of the Question, it would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for by the hon. and Noble Member.

Agricultural and Building Workers

Mr. Jennings: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a further statement about the release from the Services of agricultural workers and building operatives, in view of the man-power shortage in both these industries.

Mr. Isaacs: Considerable assistance has been given to agriculture by the loan of Service labour to help with harvesting and by the grant of leave to agricultural workers. The question whether further


steps by way of special releases from the Forces can be taken is under examination. As regards building operatives, the number to be released in Class B is the maximum number consistent with the principle of release by age and length of service. It is estimated that, in addition to the 70,000 workers to be released in Class B for building and ancillary industries, about 150,000 in these industries will be released in Class A by the end of 1945.

Official Information

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Information if he will use every possible means to keep forces overseas constantly informed of the Government's policy and arrangements in regard to demobilisation.

The Minister of Information (Mr. E. J. Williams): This is primarily the responsibility of the Service Departments, but I understand from them that meticulous care is taken to ensure that all official news on the subject reaches the Forces in overseas commands, both through Service newspapers and Service broadcasting stations.

Mr. Kirby: May I ask the Minister whether the Services are going to use the Education Officers for the dissemination of this information?

Mr. Williams: As far as the Army is concerned they are using Forcereuter News Service now and the Air Ministry propose to produce a publication to deal with matters of detail very shortly.

Small Business Owners

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the hardships suffered by many men who owned their businesses and whose wives or others have been carrying them on as best they could so as to keep the business together; and if he will consider a scheme, outside the group scheme, for the release of these men as they are urgently needed by their businesses and will not be competitors in the labour market.

Mr. Isaacs: I should not be justified in making an exception of this nature to the general rule of release from the Forces by age and length of service. Release on compassionate grounds is a matter for the Service Departments.

Sir Ronald Ross: Will the Minister bear in mind that in Northern Ireland, where there is no National Service Act, businesses have been ruined by the competition of other businesses from which no one has joined up?

Students

Mr. Jennings: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the shortage of professional students, he will institute a scheme for the release from the Services of professional students who have not had the benefit of deferment, in order to allow them to qualify.

Mr. Isaacs: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the answer:

Under the present arrangements, the following students are eligible for release in Class B:

(a) University Arts students of Scholarship standard,
(b) Science students selected by their Universities as being either
(1) students of First Class or high Second Class Honours standard selected as research students or third year students, or
(2) other students selected as of high promise who were called up before the end of their normal deferment and before they had had an opportunity of taking an Honours degree,

(c) students in medicine, dentistry and veterinary surgery recommended by their Universities or the appropriate Schools who either:



(1) gave up their reservation to join the Forces, or
(2) joined the Forces before the present conditions of reservation were in operation, but would have been reserved if they had been in force.
Only men in release groups 1–49 (i.e., with substantially three years' service) are eligible. In addition, up to 1,500 theological students nominated by their Church authorities and having at least three years' military service are being released in Class B.
I am considering whether it would be possible to extend these arrangements to certain classes of professional students.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Labour, whether he will now reconsider the release of science students whose studies were interrupted by voluntary enlistment in the Armed Forces to enable them to resume their studies.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir; it has been decided that certain science students shall be eligible for release from the Forces in Class B to enable them to resume their studies at Universities. Those eligible are students in release groups 1to 49 inclusive, selected by their Universities as being in one of the following categories:
First, student of first-class or high second-class honours standard selected as research students or third-year students, and
Second, other students of high promise who were called up before the end of their normal deferment and before they had an opportunity of taking an Honours degree.

Captain Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if medical students are included?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot at the moment add anything to what I have said. I will let the hon. and gallant Member know.

Building Operatives

Mr. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Labour how many offers of release under Class B have been made to builders serving in the Forces; and how many acceptances have been received to the nearest convenient date.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of men in the Services who have been offered Class B release; and how many of them have accepted release under this scheme.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the large numbers of skilled artisans, including builders, plumbers, joiners and experienced men in export trades who are still retained in the Forces despite their, and their previous employers, wish to return to their civilian jobs; how many of such men have declined release under Scheme B; how many have applied for release under Scheme B and been refused; and what further steps he proposes to take 10 secure the early return of these men.

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Labour up to what specific groups it will be necessary to go in order to obtain, under the Class B scheme, a sufficient number of teachers for present requirements; and what is the highest numbered group from which teachers have to date been released under this scheme.

Mr. Isaacs: I have consulted the Service Departments, who alone can give this detailed information, and I have satisfied myself that its extraction would involve a disproportionate amount of time and work, and would, moreover, seriously interfere with action now being taken for the release of men for whom application has been made and whose services are urgently needed. Some of the information asked for was given in the comprehensive statement which I made last week, and I propose to issue a general statement of progress monthly. In all the circumstances, I do not feel justified in asking the Service Departments to delay work on current releases by supplying further detailed information about the progress of release of specified classes. I hope hon. Members will be ready to co-operate in this matter by not asking for detailed information which can only be given at the cost of slowing down the current work on releases.

Mr. Mallalieu: Can the Minister say, generally, whether he is satisfied with the rate of acceptance in the Forces?

Mr. Isaacs: It is difficult to say that we are satisfied, but we are content with the matter as it now stands, and efforts are being made to encourage acceptance.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is the Minister aware that the condition, not only of war damaged houses, but of other houses as well, gets worse and worse, and could not the right hon. Gentleman really think of some action to try to get more building operatives back on the job?

Mr. Isaacs: They are being brought back as quickly as we can contact them, but many of them are long distances away. We are, up to the present, content, as I say. We would like to see it better, but we cannot do better at the moment.

Mr. Cocks: Is it possible for building employers to apply for a release of their men to the Ministry of Works?

Mr. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will assure builders released under Class B from the Forces that they will not be directed to work away from home.

Mr. Isaacs: Building operatives released from the Forces in Class B are, in general, placed in building work near their homes. At my request, the Service Departments have already arranged for this to be explained to men who are offered release in Class B, but it has been pointed out that it may be necessary to employ a man away from home to meet special circumstances.

N.F.S. Service

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider allowing N.F.S. service, prior to joining the Armed Forces, to be taken into account for the purpose of grouping under the age-plus-service demobilisation scheme.

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in considering the present arrangements for demobilisation, he will arrange that service in the police force, the N.F.S., and other similar services will count to some extent in connection with the demobilisation of men and women of the Fighting Services which they subsequently joined.

Mr. Isaacs: The answer is in the negative. This question has been fully considered and I should not feel justified in re-opening it now.

Mr. Davies: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has given full consideration to the fact that many of these members of the N.F.S. have served in blitzed areas far away from their homes, that they have seen as much enemy action as members of the Forces, and would he give special consideration to them?

Mr. Isaacs: All those factors, and other relative factors of a similar character, have been under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Minister of Labour how many operatives it is estimated will be employed in the building industry by 10th May, 1946.

Mr. Isaacs: It is expected that by 10th May, 1946, the number of operatives available for employment in the building

industry will be about 750,000. It is not easy to distinguish between building workers and civil engineering workers and many of the latter are available for building work.

Mr. Hogg: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the calculation to which he has just referred, is on the same basis as that made during a speech earlier in the year by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, when he was Minister of Labour?

Mr. Isaacs: Without an opportunity of looking that up, I could not answer the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTED MINE WORKERS (PROSECUTIONS)

Major Wyatt: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider not instituting any further prosecutions against boys who were directed into the mines under the coalmining ballot and dropping any such prosecutions that may be outstanding.

Mr. Isaacs: Boys who entered coalmining as a result of the ballot are subject to the Essential Work and Coalmining Industry Order, 1943, as are other men in the industry. The policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, with regard to the enforcement of Article 6 of that Order, applies equally to these boys as to other workers in the industry, all of whom, however, remain liable to proceedings in the event of their leaving coalmining employment without permission of the National Service Officer. The great majority of the boys selected by ballot have, in fact, loyally accepted work in coalmining as their form of national service and have done very good work in the pits.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the regular publication of statistics relating to employment and unemployment.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of existing apprehension concerning unemployment, he will revert to the pre-war custom of announcing unemployment figures once a month.

Mr. Isaacs: At present these statistics are being published at quarterly intervals. I hope to make a statement shortly about their more frequent publication.

Viscountess Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour when it is intended to resume publication of the index of unemployment in the various employment ex change areas.

Mr. Isaacs: Owing to the changes which are now occurring in the composition and geographical distribution of the insured population, percentages of unemployment in particular areas similar to those which were formerly given in the "Local Unemployment Index" would in many cases be seriously misleading. A table snowing the numbers of unemployed persons on the registers at Employment Exchanges in a large number of the principal towns is, however, now being regularly published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

Viscountess Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour when it is intended to resume publication in the Ministry of Labour Gazette of the monthly statistics showing unemployment in the principal industries.

Mr. Isaacs: Statistics of unemployment in the various industries in October will be published in the November issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette. I am not at present able to say when it will be possible to resume publication at monthly intervals.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTED WOMEN WORKERS (WALES)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour whether women and girls conscripted from Wales for work of national importance during the war are now being informed of any possible vacancies or opportunities of work in Wales, in order that they may return to their own home areas at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Isaacs: Workers who were transferred away from home to war work and who wish to return to their home areas are allowed to do so, save in exceptional circumstances. Particulars of any suitable vacancies or opportunities for work in their home area can be obtained from the Employment Exchange in the area where they were working. Because, however,

there is still a shortage of women for work of high priority in the areas to which they were transferred, I do not propose to circulate details of vacancies of less importance which may be current in their home area.

Mr. Freeman: Could the Minister say whether he is satisfied that the amount of work likely to be available in Wales will be sufficient to absorb all these women and girls who wish to return?

Mr. Isaacs: That is rather another question, but I can assure the hon. Member that the position in Wales is having very careful attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITTEE ON HIGHER APPOINTMENTS (RECOMMENDATIONS)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Minister of Labour, what action he proposes to take on the Report, Cmd. 6576, of the Committee on Higher Appointments.

Mr. Isaacs: I am sending my hon. Friend a statement showing how the main recommendations of the Committee on Higher Appointments have been implemented, and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the recommendations in the Report conflict with the views of the managerial, scientific and technical trade unions, and does he propose to consult them before framing his final proposals?

Mr. Isaacs: If that particular trade union, to which my hon. Friend refers, makes some communication to me, I shall be glad to look into the point, but I have not heard of it before.

Oral Answers to Questions — FARM WORKERS (CONTROL)

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to withdraw the standstill order for farm workers.

Mr. Isaacs: The whole question of labour controls has been under review and I hope shortly to make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY (MAN-POWER)

Colonel Erroll: asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made since 25th July, 1945, in augmenting the labour force in the cotton industry.

Mr. Isaacs: In the period 13th May to 21st July, 1945, the average number of workers placed in employment in the cotton industry each fortnight was 935. The corresponding figure for the period 22nd July to 29th September was 1,224 each fortnight. The net increase in the labour force of the spinning section of the industry was 1,150 between July and September.

Colonel Erroll: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing similar figures each fortnight or each month so that we may know how the industry is getting on?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not sure that publication, in the accepted sense of the word, is necessary, but we should be glad to give information if Questions on the matter were put down from time to time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY APPRENTICES (CALL-UP)

Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will regard apprentices indentured to aircraft firms before the age of 16, for the purpose of studying for the Air Registration Board's examination to qualify as licensed ground engineers, as exempt from call-up in view of the fact that such a licence is the only one recognised by the Air Ministry as qualifying the holder to certify the safety of aircraft and engines for flight.

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Member would let me have particulars of any individual cases that he has in mind I would consider whether they satisfy the conditions under which apprentices are deferred as such, and, if not, whether there are other grounds that would justify deferring their call-up.

Oral Answers to Questions — RESETTLEMENT GRANTS SCHEME

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Labour how many grants have been approved under the Government's Resettlement Grants Scheme since this scheme was brought into operation on 18th June, 1945.

Mr. Isaacs: The number of grants authorised under this scheme from its inception up to the 30th September, 1945, is 1,075.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEMENT INDUSTRY (ESSENTIAL WORK ORDER)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Labour when it will be possible to lift the Essential Work Order from the cement works industry in Britain.

Mr. Isaacs: I would ask the hon. Member to await the general statement which I hope to make shortly on the subject of labour controls, but he will no doubt be aware of the importance of the cement industry in relation to the building programme.

Mr. Brown: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that, as the rates of pay in this industry are especially low, there is deep resentment about men being tied to badly paid jobs by the Essential Work Order; and will he give very careful attention to this case in his general review?

Mr. Isaacs: Certainly, but unfortunately that fact does not apply only to the cement industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORK DIRECTIONS (UNIVERSITY STUDENTS)

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that students who have been recommended by the appropriate university body to continue their studies with a view to taking an honours degree, have been refused per mission to do so and have been direct into industry; and whether, in view of the general easing of labour controls, he is prepared to amend his policy in this respect.

Mr. Isaacs: As I have explained to my hon. Friend in correspondence it has not always been possible to accept the recommendations of the university authorities in this matter, and I am not prepared to alter my policy in respect of students who left the universities in the summer of this year. Those who entered the universities in October, 1944, and subsequently, can however, take a full three-year course.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE ABROAD (PASSAGES FOR WIVES)

Mr. Hogg: asked the Prime Minister what steps are in contemplation by the Government to facilitate arrangements for wives of Crown servants and the regular


Forces employed permanently or for long periods beyond the seas to join their husbands.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): As already announced, with the end of hostilities it may be possible to provide a very limited number of passages for Service families and those of Crown servants, who wish to leave the United Kingdom to join their husbands if these are serving for certain minimum tours of duty overseas. Full details and instructions to those concerned are about to be issued.

Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some general indication of the numbers concerned in this very welcome concession?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot give the exact number. The hon. Member knows that transport is very tight, but we are doing our best to give those with the biggest claims this concession.

Mr. Hogg: Can the House have some indication of whether it will be 5,000, 10,000 or 20,000?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member will put down a specific Question as to the numbers, I will see what answer I can give him.

Captain Crowder: Can the Prime Minister say whether the wives are to make the application, or is it to come from the regular soldier or Crown servant serving overseas?

The Prime Minister: Details and instructions are being issued. I have not got them with me but I will send them to the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Squadron-Leader: Donner asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of our responsibilities towards the Arabs, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land, he will now state the policy of His Majesty's Government as regards the White Paper

The Prime Minister: I have no statement to make at present, but I hope to make one at an early date.

Squadron-Leader Donner: In view of the very great danger of further delay and uncertainty, would the Prime Minister make it at a very early date?

The Prime Minister: I am making it as early as possible.

Earl Winterton: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if there is any departure to be announced from the White Paper policy, there will be an opportunity of discussion in this House before that departure is put into operation?

The Prime Minister: A statement will be made in the House and that statement will obviously be debated before action has been taken, therefore that contingency will not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC BOMB (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Mr. Hogg: asked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to state the policy of His Majesty's Government regarding the principles of political action to be followed as a result of the invention of the atomic bomb.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will be aware that the President of the United States has recently expressed the wish to initiate discussions on this subject first with Great Britain and Canada, and then with other nations, with the object of reaching agreement on the conditions under which co-operation might replace rivalry in the field of atomic energy. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will of course be happy to participate in such discussions. Mean while they have been keeping in close touch with the United States Government, as well as pursuing their own studies through the Advisory Committee, of which I informed the House before the Recess, but I cannot name a date for a statement of the kind that the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Hogg: May not the people of this country be told something about the views which the right hon. Gentleman and his Cabinet have upon this matter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly, but I think the people of this country would agree that in this matter we want to keep in the closest possible contact with our friends in the United States and Canada.

Mr. Hogg: May we not know what is the Government's view?

The Prime Minister: Certainly, in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABERCROMBIE PLAN (DEBATE)

Mr. Touche: asked the Prime Minister if he will grant facilities for a debate upon the Abercrombie plan.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. I am afraid that at present I can hold out no prospects of time being available for such a Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — VICTORY CELEBRATIONS

Colonel Ropner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that, when the Japanese surrender is complete and other circumstances permit, arrangements will be made for a victory parade in London and all other large towns with suitable celebrations for the public, and that ample notice of such arrangements particularly with regard to the date or dates officially recognised as appropriate will be given.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTIONS (SERVICE CANDIDATES)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Prime Minister whether he will issue instructions that personnel of the armed Forces stationed in or near this country who have been formally adopted by a recognised political party as candidates in the forth coming municipal elections shall be given leave for the purpose of taking part in the election.

The Prime Minister: As was stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on 24th August in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparkes), no extra leave is admissible, but leave which is ordinarily due may be deferred or brought forward subject to the exigencies of the Service. This practice is common to all three Services.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH ARMED FORCES (BRITISH CITIZENSHIP)

Captain Gammans: asked the Prime Minister how far he proposes to implement the pledge given by the Coalition Government to grant British citizenship to those members of the Polish armed Forces who are unwilling, or unable, to return to the new conditions in Poland.

The Prime Minister: It is clearly of primary importance, and in the best interests of the Polish nationals concerned, that as many as possible should be encouraged to return to Poland and should have time freely to decide to do so in the light of the information available as to the conditions which they are likely to find on their return; and it is on this aspect of the matter that the Governments concerned are concentrating. It is too soon to form any opinion as to the numbers of those who may eventually decide not to return to their homes, and the question of the steps to be taken to give effect to the hope expressed by my predecessor that it may be possible to offer British nationality to Polish troops who have served under our command is being borne in mind, but cannot be given further consideration until the nature and the size of the problem have been ascertained.

Captain Gammans: Will my right hon. Friend answer my Question and say whether or not his Government is bound by the pledge which was given by the previous Government, of which my right hon. Friend was a member of the War Cabinet? Does that pledge still hold or does it not?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter on which we obviously have to consult with the other Governments of the Commonwealth, but I may say that it was a hope rather than a pledge. It is in the spirit of that, however, that we intend to act. We need to do our utmost for our friends who have been fighting with us so well during the war. I think it would be premature to make a declaration at the moment on the exact steps proposed to be taken.

Captain Gammans: rose—

Miss Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend consider that it is really necessary to delay before he says whether, after giving full time for consideration to Poles who put confidence in the previous Prime Minister's promise, if they decide finally not to return, the late Prime Minister's promise will be honoured or dishonoured?

The Prime Minister: I do not quite know what the hon. Lady means. I have stated that we are seeing how to implement the hope expressed by my predecessor.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Surely the Dominions were consulted when that promise was given?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (POSTAGE AND SECRETARIAL FACILITIES)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the intentions of the Government in the matter of providing Members of Parliament with free postage and secretarial assistance and of adjusting their pay.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I am not yet in a position to make any statement, but these and other connected questions are under consideration.

Mr. Brown: I am obliged for that reply but would the Prime Minister be so good as to indicate, if possible, roughly when he hopes to be able to make a statement on this very important matter?

The Prime Minister: I hope to do so fairly soon but the hon. Member will realise that there is a very large number of important subjects jostling for priority.

Mr. Cocks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the correspondence of Members has become so enormous that those Members who cannot afford secretaries will either have to abandon attending the Debates or abandon their correspondence?

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY (RESEARCH)

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Prime Minister what steps have already been taken to speed up research in Britain into the industrial use of atomic energy; and, in view of the widespread interest in this matter, if he will consider issuing an interim report on the Anderson Atomic Energy Committee.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member can rest assured that all necessary steps are being taken to deal with this matter. It would not be in the public interest at present to give details, nor to publish the reports of the Anderson Committee.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not a fact that work covering the whole field of slow controllable reactions is known to be going forward in the United States and Canada, and is it not essential that a programme of similar work should be de-

veloped in this country so that during the course of the next industrial revolution we shall not be left standing?

Mr. Attlee: I can assure the hon. Member that we do not intend to be left behind in any revolution.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN TRADE CARTELS

Mr. Palmer: asked the Prime Minister what information he has received from the Allied Military Conference as to foreigners employed by the German trade cartels; and how many persons of British nationality are involved

The Prime Minister: The information required is not readily available but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is looking into the position and will communicate with my hon. Friend..

Oral Answers to Questions — E.N.S.A. ORGANISATION

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the charges made by Sir Herbert Dunnico when resigning, he will set up a small independent committee to review and report upon the work, direction and organisation of E.N.S.A.

Mr. H. Morrison: This is a matter in the first instance for the National Services Entertainments Board, who are considering whether any inquiry is necessary,

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Mr. Maurice Webb: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has any statement to make on television policy.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Government has considered and given general approval to the recommendations of the Committee which, under the chairmanship of Lord Hankey, considered the future of the television service; and the necessary action has been set in train.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Housing Subsidies

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the local authorities with interest-free loans as


a means of stimulating the housing programme and of providing houses at a reasonable rent.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): No, Sir. It is proposed shortly to introduce legislation providing increased assistance to local authorities in respect of houses built during the immediate post-war period, but this assistance will take the form of subsidies, and not of concessions on rates of interest.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Chancellor aware that there is no justification for interest other than risks taken in lending money? As he has taken no risk in lending money to local authorities what reason is there for interest other than to keep in line with the robbers in the City? Further, is there any use in accepting interest on the one hand and handing out subsidies with the other?

Mr. Dalton: I think the hon. Gentleman is embarking on large and general issues of economic theory, which we cannot go into now.

Investments (Control)

Mr. Jennings: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to make known the details of his policy in connection with the control of investments in view of the widespread uncertainty among investors both large and small.

Mr. Dalton: Until I introduce the Government's proposals for legislation on this subject, I cannot add anything to my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on 23rd August last.—[Official Report, Vol. 413, cols. 836–7.]

Mr. Jennings: Is the Chancellor aware that statements of this nature are liable to do a great deal of harm if no concrete proposal is formulated so that the country can see what it is?

Mr. Dalton: I have not seen any evidence of any harm resulting so far.

War Damage Claims

Mr. York: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce the final arrangements for the payment of premiums and the settlement of claims of the War Damage Fund.

Mr. Dalton: There is no separate War Damage Fund. Contributions and premiums are paid into the Exchequer and payments of claims are made out of money voted by Parliament. I have already announced, in reply to a question on 23rd August, that the instalment under Part I of the Act which fell due on 1st July this year will be the last. The payment of premiums under Part II ceased after 7th May last and, for some months previously, premiums had not been collected except in respect of new policies and policies for increased amounts. I cannot yet fix dates for the final payment of claims, as this will depend not only on financial considerations but also on the availability of supplies.

Income Tax and Purchase Tax

Mr. Sunderland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will consider the extension of the £80 earned income allowance now granted to a married woman, to the woman in receipt of a war widow's pension who is compelled to engage in gainful employment in order to maintain herself and her children;
(2) if he is aware of the hardship caused through the small personal allowance of £80 for Income Tax purposes to widows and spinsters who have to maintain a home out of their pensions and/or earnings; and whether he will take steps to increase the allowance at an early date.

. Captain Crowder: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the hardship imposed on taxicab proprietors as a result of the heavy Purchase Tax which is charged on new vehicles; and whether, having regard to the fact that all other vehicles used solely for public transport purposes are not subject to Purchase Tax, he will exempt new taxicabs from this tax.

Mr. Nutting: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider an early reduction of taxation for lower income groups and, in particular, more generous allowances for unmarried working men and women and old age pensioners.

Mr. Dalton: I must ask my hon. Friends to await my Budget statement.

Clearing Bank Deposits

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that clearing bank deposits rose


by £415,000,000 in the period April-August of this year compared with only £173,000,000 in the corresponding period of last year, notwithstanding a decline in the current deficit for the period from £1,397,000,000 to £1,172,000,000; and, in view of the risk of inflation, will he try to reduce the proportion of the deficit covered by the creation of additional bank deposits.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. But the figures up to the end of August this year were affected by the postponement of the Thanksgiving Weeks owing to the General Election. Those up to the end of September make a better showing. The best safeguard against the risk of inflation is large and continuous saving by the general public.

Mr. Gallacher: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what effect the hon. Member opposite had on Thanksgiving Week?

Mr. Dalton: I am glad to say that there was an increased contribution from his constituency.

Defence Regulations (Temporary Documents)

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Trading with the Enemy Act and Defence (Finance) Regulations, covering the transfer of bearer securities, apply to temporary documents such as letters of rights and allotment letters, involving much labour for bankers, members of the Stock Exchange and others and using much paper; and will he either relax the regulations so far as temporary documents are concerned, or amend Regulation 3A of the Defence (Finance) Regulations (Fifth Edition) of 14th October, 1942, to exclude renounceable allotment letters and letters of rights from the definition of bearer securities.

Mr. Dalton: I have already made administrative arrangements on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend to treat transfers of these temporary documents on the same footing as registered securities, thereby effecting the desired saving of labour and paper.

Export Trades (Taxation)

Mr. Astor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an

assurance that future measures of taxation will allow small private firms to make a reasonable profit on their returns if they now resume their pre-war export trades.

Mr. Dalton: I cannot give any such assurance, in advance of my Budget statement, regarding future measures of taxation.

University Grants

Captain Charles Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the importance of increasing the number of qualified specialists of all kinds, whether he will call, as a matter of urgency, for a special report from the University Grants Committee on the immediate needs of the universities.

Mr. Dalton: The University Grants Committee presented to my predecessor last January a full report on the financial needs of the universities, and effect has already been given to their recommendations for the current year. They are now engaged on a further survey.

Bank of England Bill

Mr. Bossom: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the financial burden that would have to be borne by the British taxpayers to enable the Government to purchase the stock of the Bank of England.

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps the hon. Member will study the Bank of England Bill, copies of which will be available in the Vote Office to-morrow afternoon.

Mr. Bossom: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what benefits will be gained by the public over the present system?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, but not to-day.

Bloodstock Sales (Purchase Tax)

Mr. Maurice Webb: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make sales of bloodstock subject to Purchase Tax.

Mr. Dalton: I am advised that there are certain administrative difficulties, but I am considering my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Webb: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether, in considering the question, he will bear in mind the need for equating


the position of electors in Bishop Auckland, who must pay Purchase Tax on boots and shoes, with that of rich Indian Princes who have just spent up to 28,000 guineas on yearlings without paying any Purchase Tax at all?

Mr. Dalton: I appreciate the intention behind my hon. Friend's question, but I would remind him that utility footwear was exempted from Purchase Tax some years ago. In this particular case, the difficulty is that up to now Purchase Tax has not been levied upon animals of any kind, but I am looking into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS ACT (APPOINTED DAY)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury will now appoint an early day for the purpose of Section 45 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945.

Mr. Dalton: It is more urgent to derequisition premises no longer required, than to reassess the rents of premises still requisitioned. Derequisitioning is now proceeding at top speed, and I should prefer to let this go a little further before fixing the appointed day.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (STAFFS)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will, as a first step, take the necessary action to make an immediate cut of 20 per cent. in the number of civil servants.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already issued directions for the speediest possible reduction in staffs engaged on war duties. I am afraid, however, that an arbitrary cut of the kind suggested by the hon. Member is not feasible.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that an arbitrary cut of this kind would reduce immediately that amount of interference with trade and industry, and thus initiate and encourage our vital exports?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon, Friend the Chancellor wants to encourage exports,

but I am afraid that a reduction of 20 per cent. in the Civil Service would not help that desirable end.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WAR EFFORT (PUBLICITY)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Information why no official information has been given to the people of this country regarding the extent of their contribution to the Allied victory as compared with that of the U.S.A.; and why the facts and figures, as given by Lord Keynes, were only made known in this country as the result of a leakage to an American newspaper.

Mr. E. J. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member will recall the Command Paper entitled "Statistics Relating to the War Effort of the United Kingdom" which was issued last November and which gave full information as to the extent of this country's contribution to the Allied victory. More recently further information has been made available about manpower, casualties and war production, and it is hoped to issue very shortly figures showing the wartime expansion of individual fighting services and various auxiliary services. The great contribution made by this country to the Allied war effort is self-evident from these statistics and His Majesty's Government have no wish to make unilateral statements comparing this effort with that of any of our Allies. The symposium of figures to which the hon. and gallant Member refers in the latter part of his question was not prepared for publication but only to assist in the official discussions which are taking place in Washington.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this information when it was prepared, was not intended for publication? Was it not of the very greatest importance to the people of this country as well as to the people of the United States? Why has his Department, which exists for the purpose of conveying information, not given this information to the public at an earlier date?

Mr. Williams: I think, if my hon. and gallant Friend will read the Command Paper referred to, he will realise that most of the information that was published in this country was then printed. The other things in the leakage to which he


refers were not for public presentation at all.

Commander Marsden: Is it not the case that although this information may be available to the Minister of Information in the United States, there is no machinery at all for its distribution, and it never gets through to the people of the United States?

Sir Ronald Ross: Will the Minister give some information about the various actions—naval, military and air—in which our Forces have been engaged, as security is of far less importance now; and would not this be preferable to having the papers full of atrocity stories?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (REDUNDANT STAFF)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour what reply he has made to the representations recently made to him to institute an inquiry into the numbers of staff employed by the various Ministries, with a view to replacing immediately the skilled men now being withdrawn from export industries and other trades vital to recovery.

Mr. Isaacs: I have seen the letter to which I understand the hon. Member refers. A reply was sent giving an assurance that we had not overlooked the possibility of drawing upon redundant labour in Government establishments for the purpose of meeting other demands.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the acute situation which is developing on account of the withdrawal of young key men from the export industries, as the strikes now taking place indicate?

Mr. Isaacs: That point has not been overlooked.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on Business?

Mr. H. Morrison: There is no change in the Business announced for to-day, to-morrow and Thursday. On Thursday, after the proceedings in connection with the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, we shall also ask the House to consider the Motions to approve Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 3) and Additional Import Duties (No. 2) Orders.
In regard to the Report from the Select Committee on Elections, the Government have decided to bring in a Bill to relieve the two hon. Members concerned from the pecuniary penalties which they have incurred and to validate their elections in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. The Report became available on the day the House adjourned for the Recess, and, as the position of the two hon. Members has been in doubt for a considerable time, we feel that the House will wish to deal with the matter as soon as possible. The Bill will be presented to-morrow and we hope that the House will agree to take the Second Reading as first order on Friday.
We shall then take the Second Reading of the Indian Franchise Bill [Lords] and ask the House to approve a draft Order to set up the Boundary Commissions so that they can begin their general review of Parliamentary constituencies. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1945—which was passed before the date of termination of hostilities could be foreseen—the date fixed for the Boundary Commissions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be constituted, and for all the Boundary Commissions (including that for England) to begin their general review of Parliamentary constituencies, is 15th October, 1946, with power to advance or postpone by one year. Now that hostilities have ceased, it is desirable that the review should begin, and the Order accordingly advances the date to 15th October, 1945. The Order cannot take effect until approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament. Afterwards, if there is time, we hope to make progress with the Indian Divorce Bill and the British Settlements Bill.
The Inshore Fishing Industry Bill and the Artificial Insemination Bill will be postponed.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Inshore Fishing Industry Bill and the other Bill which he mentioned would be postponed?

Mr. Morrison: Both are to be postponed.

Mr. Cocks: On a point of Order. May I ask Mr. Speaker whether the statement to be made by the Foreign Secretary will be subject to debate?

Mr. Speaker: The statement will not be subject to debate.

COUNCIL OF FOREIGN MINISTERS (LONDON MEETING)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I desire to make a statement on the work of the Council of Foreign Ministers. I have refrained since the close of the Council from making any public statement until the House met. The Conference opened on nth September. Having studied the terms of reference of the Council which were laid down in the protocol of the Berlin Conference, I thought it right to submit to my colleagues at the opening meeting a suggestion as to procedure. I suggested that it would be inconvenient if some of the Members of the Council had to be excluded from some of the meetings. It would be even more inconvenient, I said, if some Members had to be asked to leave a particular meeting while some of the items on the agenda were discussed. I felt that the business of the Conference could be much more easily arranged if it could be agreed that all five Members could take part in all discussions, even though on matters relating to the peace settlements the power to take decisions in the Council was confined to Members whose Governments had signed or were deemed to have signed, the relevant terms of surrender.
Mr. Byrnes, the Secretary of State for the United States, took the same view as I did, and Mr. Molotov said that he agreed with my proposal if, as he understood it, it meant that all five members of the Council should attend all meetings, and, if they desired, participate in the discussions, but that decisions should be taken only by the delegations representing the Governments which were, or by the Council's terms of reference were deemed to be, signatories of the relevent terms of surrender.
All being agreed on this interpretation of the Berlin Protocol, the proposal which I had made was adopted without dissent. I am sure that when we passed this resolution at our opening meeting we believed that we had faithfully interpreted the understanding reached by the signatories of the Protocol. In accordance with this resolution the Council held 16 plenary meetings during ten days of hardwork, and had made much progress, not only on general questions but on treaty questions as well. We had practically reached agreement on the draft of a treaty with

Finland, and had made provision for the reference of this question to the Deputies. We had made considerable progress on the draft treaty with Italy. We had considered and satisfactorily disposed of several aspects of this treaty. For example, in the difficult question of the Italian-Yugoslav frontier, the Council agreed to hear the views of the Governments of Yugoslavia and Italy as well as of Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. After these hearings, the Council instructed their Deputies to report on a line which left a minimum population under alien rule.
The Deputies were also asked to report on an international regime for the port of Trieste. The cession of the Dodecanese to Greece was proposed but no final settlement was reached. On the question of the disposal of the Italian colonies, the United States delegation put forward a proposal which his Majesty's Government instructed me to support, since they felt that this was a wise and a far-seeing proposal which would avoid friction between the Great Powers in these areas, and would give a chance for a great experiment in international co-operation. The American proposal provided for the placing of these Italian territories under a collective trusteeship by the United Nations Organisation as a whole. It was agreed after discussion that this question of trusteeship for the Italian colonies should be referred to the Deputies, who would make the widest possible use of the American proposals, and take into account also the alternative proposal of a single State trusteeship. Thus on this difficult matter we had, despite divergent views, reached a general agreement as to the basis upon which it should be further examined.
To continue with my account of the work on the peace treaties done in the early part of the Conference, we had made a start on the draft treaties for Rumania and Bulgaria. There were before the Council proposals by the Soviet, British and United States delegations. We took the Soviet proposals as a basis and several points raised in the British proposals were disposed of. We then proceeded to discuss the United States proposals regarding the draft peace treaty with Rumania. These United States proposals brought up the whole question of the recognition of the Government of


Rumania, since it has been made clear in them that the United States Government, while ready to discuss a draft, would not negotiate a peace treaty with Rumania until a broadly representative government had been established in that country. Much the same issue came up in connection with the draft treaty for Bulgaria. Since on this subject there was a great divergence of view, I proposed, in the hope of easing the difficulties of the position, that an independent inquiry should be made into conditions in these two countries.
I have said enough to show some of the difficulties of the negotiations in which we were engaged, and also the substantial progress that had been made in our discussions during the first ten days of the Council's meetings. I was therefore surprised when Mr. Molotov told Mr. Byrnes and myself on the morning of 22nd September that we had all violated the Berlin Agreement, and that he could not agree to continue discussions on the peace treaties under the procedure on which we had been working for ten days. I said to Mr. Molotov that I did not agree that the Berlin Agreement prevented us from working in the way in which we had been. And I pointed out to him that we had all agreed at our opening meeting that this was the way in which we intended to work. For the next few days Mr. Byrnes and I went over the arguments many times with Mr. Molotov, but could come to no agreement. Mr. Molotov held that the Berlin Agreement should be interpreted in one way and Mr. Byrnes and I held that it should be interpreted in another, the way in which it had been interpreted when the Council passed its resolution of11th September. Through out these discussions I was concerned to urge the wider interpretation which would have given an opportunity to the Dominions and other Governments who had made material contributions to the defeat of the Axis, to express their views at the peace settlement. Since the three Foreign Secretaries could not agree on the interpretation of the Agreement we decided to refer to the three Heads of Governments. President Truman and Mr. Attlee endorsed the views which Mr. Byrnes and I had expressed; Marshal Stalin endorsed the view which Mr. Molotov had expressed; so we were no nearer an agreement.
I must now say a word about the Berlin Agreement. It lays down very clearly that the immediate important task of the Council is to draw up peace treaties with Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Finland. It lays down that members other than the signatories of the terms of surrender will be invited to participate when matters directly concerning them are under discussion. I ought to explain that in accepting the invitation to join the Council the French Government had represented that it was perforce interested in all settlements in Europe. The Berlin Agreement also lays down that the Council may adapt its procedure to the particular problem under consideration, and we think that all the members of the Council, including the Soviet, agreed that that was what we were to do when the resolution of nth September was drawn up. In fact it was the representative of China who presided over the Council on the day when it was decided to invite certain Governments to send representatives to discuss the question of Trieste, and it was the representative of China in whose name the invitations were sent out. He happened to be the chairman for that particular session. So, on nth September, and for ten days afterwards, Mr. Molotov seemed to agree with us, and we never thought otherwise. He told us later that his new attitude was taken up on instructions from his Government. If we had given effect to the interpretation on which the Soviet Delegation insisted it would have meant that in discussing the Balkan Treaties we should have had to say in effect to the representatives of France and China, "Now you must leave the room while we are discussing these matters." And when we came to the Finnish Treaty we should have had to invite the United States to withdraw as well. Such a request by some of the Powers to their partners would obviously have created international difficulties which the United States and British Delegations did not feel they should be called upon to face. How could it, moreover, have been reconciled with the Charter of the United Nations organization, which lays upon the five Powers as permanent members of the Security Council a special responsibility to maintain the peace of the world?
As we could not reach agreement on the interpretation of the Berlin document and as the general questions on the agenda


had become exhausted the time came when we had to see whether we could at least agree on what had already been discussed. But when it came to the point we ran up against the same difficulty. Mr. Molotov proposed that instead of one Protocol recording the Council's decisions there should be four separate Protocols; one on general questions which would be signed by all five members of the Council; the second on the Italian Peace Treaty, which would be signed by the representatives of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States and France; the third dealing with Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania, which would be signed by the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States; and the fourth dealing with Finland, which would be signed by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. After some discussion we agreed to Mr. Molotov's proposal, but he then maintained that before he would sign any of the Protocols the Council must strike out from its record the decision taken on nth September. This no one else was prepared to do. This would in effect not have given a true record of our procedure. We proposed, however, that a passage should be inserted in the Protocol making it clear that Mr. Molotov had on 22nd September stated that the resolution of 11th September had in the view of his Government been a breach of the Berlin Agreement.
Mr. Byrnes and I did our best to persuade Mr. Molotov that the terms of reference of the Council were wide enough to admit of a common sense interpretation. Mr. Byrnes attempted to find a way out of the difficulties by proposing that a conference should be called for the purpose of submitting the Peace Treaties when drawn up. To this conference all the five Powers would be invited, together with other States which had contributed materially to the defeat of the Axis. But the Soviet representative maintained that only the three signatories of the Berlin Agreement could discuss or pronounce upon this proposal.
As the House is aware, the conference broke up on Tuesday, 2nd October. On Sunday night Mr. Molotov had said that he could not sign any of the Protocols if his point could not be accepted. On the suggestion of the Chinese Foreign Minister, the conference was that night extended to the Tuesday. For my part I

spent Monday until the meeting of the Council late that night in consultation with my colleagues and made every effort to try and find a way out of our difficulties. But it was clear that there was little hope of any accommodation. It seemed to me, as to Mr. Byrnes, that the difference of view with the Soviet Delegation, technical though it might appear to be, in reality involved a big question of principle—to what extent are the Big. Three to exclude other nations from the discussion of matters of grave concern to them? This principle, I felt, it was incumbent on me to defend.
I know the disappointment that is felt in the House and throughout the world at the breakdown of the first meeting of this Council, which was set up to deal not only with peace treaties but also with other matters. Many matters other than the preparation of the peace treaties were discussed, even if not settled, at the meetings of the Council. There was, for instance, the question of the inland European waterways, which are so important when it comes to getting the transport system of Europe started again and the people fed. We failed to settle it. Reparations and other problems of Germany were also discussed. There was the question of the Government of Austria and the feeding of the people in that unhappy country. On the latter and several other matters progress was made. A return to normal and happy conditions in. Europe, to which the peace treaties must be the first step, is what the world is waiting for. This temporary breakdown will, I hope, lead to the further discussion of these matters on the basis of what is best for permanent peace, because I am sure that that is what the whole world wants. Perhaps when we met in London in September we were a little too close to two great victories for us to be able to reach immediate agreement. For the future I can say with confidence that, given time, and if we all continue to apply patience and an understanding of each other's difficulties, we shall overcome present divergencies and any others which may reveal themselves. For our part we shall certainly work in the same spirit of co-operation with which the countries united to pursue the war against our enemies.
I should, in conclusion, like to read a message which Mr. Molotov sent to me on


leaving this country and the reply which I sent to him. From Mr. Molotov:
"On leaving the borders of our Ally Great Britain I beg to transmit to the British Government my thanks for the warm welcome given to me and to those accompanying me. I express confidence that, the war against our common enemies having been victoriously concluded, our future collaboration in the interests of the peoples of Great Britain and the Soviet Union and of the strengthening of peace throughout the world will continue, having overcome the temporary difficulties encountered on the way, and that we shall jointly endeavour successfully to achieve this great end."
I replied to Mr. Molotov as follows:
I was very pleased to receive your kind message sent on the occasion of your departure from this country after the Foreign Secretaries Conference. I share your confidence in our future collaboration in the interest of the peoples of the Soviet Union and Great Britain and for the strengthening of peace throughout the world. We may, as you say, encounter difficulties on the way, but the cause we servo is so compelling that no trouble must remain unmastered in the pursuit of this high aim. Mankind throughout the world wants peace, economic recovery and a rising standard of life. The fulfilment of this must be our prime purpose.

Mr. Churchill: The House, without distinction of party, is endebted to the Foreign Secretary for the clear, temperate and able statement he has made upon the disappointing events which have taken place. I suppose that the House will wish, on some convenient occasion, to debate the general position of our foreign affairs, but we on this side of the House should be very ready to consult the Government's convenience in the matter as to whether it should be next week or the week after. I would suggest, if it were agreeable, that discussions should proceed through the usual channels with a view to determining what time would be most in accordance with convenience and the public interest for the discussion on this matter to be resumed.

Mr. Bevin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that. I do not, of course, burk debate whenever the House wants it, but I think the situation is so delicate that if the debate were delayed for a little while it may be that the strings would be remended and the national and international interests be better served.

Mr. Cocks: May I ask whether 22nd September, when the procedure question was raised, was the day after the deadlock was reached on Rumania?

Mr. Bevin: There was not a deadlock reached. It was the day after the exchange of views took place.

Mr. Awbery: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the Dominion Governments were kept fully informed of the proceedings of the Conference day by day?

Mr. Bevin: We, of course, are very anxious that the Dominions should be with us in everything, and the Prime Minister took steps, although there was not much time, to see if it was possible to consult the Prime Ministers of the Dominions before the Conference opened—they could not possibly get here—and therefore the closest possible contact was kept right throughout the whole proceedings.

Mr. Gallacher: While I would not like to make the task of the Foreign Secretary harder I must ask whether it is not the case that this whole deadlock is around the question of the form of democratic government in Rumania and Bulgaria and that the Foreign Office is wedded to a form of democracy that recognises land-owners and robber capitalists? Yes, the Foreign Office wants a similar democracy in these countries. Will the Minister, pending the debate, take on the task of gutting out the Foreign Office and bringing it into line with the opinion in these other countries?

Mr. Bevin: I always deprecate, as I did in my previous Ministry, any Member of the House throwing slurs or castigations on the staff of an office. I am served by a good staff, and if decisions are taken they are my decisions and the attacks should be made upon me.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Could my right hon. Friend define a little further what he meant by "a little while" in replying to the question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition as to the date for a Debate? Everyone appreciates the right hon. Gentleman's position and no one wants to embarrass the Government, but on the other hand he will realise that great anxieties have been caused and that a Debate should take place at some time.

Mr. Bevin: I am not the master of future events. I can only watch them evolve, and I will be guided by what develops and I will not burk debate.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us the date of the letter from Mr. Molotov, because it was only published this morning in the news bulletin? Has it recently come?

Mr. Bevin: It was written to me and left on the Wednesday night the Conference broke up. I cannot remember the date. We worked day and night and it seemed one date from the beginning of the Conference to the end.

Mr. McGovern: Would it not be better if these discussions were made public, so that the public could be informed of the points in dispute? In that case the public would be more behind the Government in its attitude.

Mr. Bevin: That is a dubious point. I doubt very much whether you would really get agreement. You already get half an hour of cameras before the meeting is opened, and that is torture enough.

Captain Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that allsections of British public opinion appreciate that he has made a fine stand for the rights of small nations for which this country has always stood?

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1945).

Estimate presented of further Sums required to be voted for the service of the year ending on 31st March 1946 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 6.]

VOTE OF CREDIT (SUPPLEMENTARY), 1945 (EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR).

Estimate presented of further Sums required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on 31st March 1946, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made there for by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of

public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; for relief and rehabilitation in areas brought under the control of any of the United Nations; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 7.]

PROCEDURE

Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Procedure on Public Business in Session 1930–31 and the Select Committee on Procedure in Session 1931–32 referred to the Select Committee on Procedure.—[Sir Robert Young.]

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

First Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read, as follows:

Your Committee have considered the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 3) Orders, 1945 (S. R. & O., 1945 No. 692), the Additional Import Duties (No. 2) Orders, 1945 (S.R. & O., 1945 No. 696), copies of which were presented on 13th June; the Additional Import Duties (No. 4) Order, 1945 (S.R. &O., 1945 No. 853), a copy of which was presented on 15th August, and the House of Commons (Boundary Commission) (Appointed Day)Order, 1945, a copy of which was presented this day, and are of the opinion that there are no reasons for drawing the special attention of the House to them on any of the grounds set out in the Order of Reference of the Committee.

Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN

Patrick Christian Gordon Walker, esquire, for Borough of Smethwick.

Hervey Rhodes, esquire, for Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House may perhaps wonder why the Secretary of State for the Home Department should deal with a Bill which affects the economic life of the nation, when he is more usually concerned with matters relating to law and order. The reason is that at the outbreak of war it was necessary that the Executive should be armed with drastic, powers to interfere with the liberties of the citizen in the interest of the defence of the Realm. It was natural that the Home Secretary should have introduced the Bill required for that purpose, and now that we come to the winding-up stage, it is still appropriate that the Home Secretary, who is, the principal Minister concerned with the maintenance of civic liberties, should introduce the legislation necessary to secure that only so much of the war-time invasions of our liberties as are necessary for our national well-being are continued in force during the transition period from war to peace. I want to make it quite clear at the outset that the Government intend to retain only those war-time powers which are desirable in the public interest. Just before the last Parliament was dissolved there was before the House a Bill similar to this. I will deal in a few minutes with the circumstances which led to its being prepared and to its being dropped, but in justifying the action that the then Government, the caretaker government took, my predecessor in office said in this connection:
We have to keep a very large measure of control, but there are some things—some of them harassing—which can be got rid of, and for my part so far as they come within my control I will do my best to see that that is done."—[Official Report, 31st May, 1945; Vol. 411, col. 427.]
I want now, to give the House some idea of the progress that has been made in the reduction of these war-time regulations. On 8th May—V.E. Day—there

were in existence 342 Defence (General) Regulations and 345 other Regulations, making a total of 687, and it will be within the recollection of those Members now present who were Members of the last House that on the next day my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council came down to the House and announced the withdrawal of 84 of the general Regulations and 95 others, making a total of 179. One further Defence Regulation was revoked on 28th May, the day on which the Coalition Government went out of office and the "Caretaker" Government came in. There has been no further revocation since, until 28th September when at a Privy Council held at Holyrood House an Order in Council was made abolishing 39 further general Regulations and 11 other Regulations. Since 9th May one new Defence Regulation and two others have been made, so that the present position is: after the revocations on 28th September there remain 219 general Regulations and 241 others, a total of 460, making a total reduction of 227–113 general Regulations and 114 others—all of which have been revoked either at the instance of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council or myself, and not one due to any activities on the part of the Caretaker Government. So that as far as this matter is concerned I think my right hon. Friend the Lord President and myself can claim that we are genuinely endeavouring to live up to the promises that my right hon. Friend made during the war-time when he alluded to the need for dispensing with such of these Regulations as were no longer desirable.
There are, I think, two distinct cases for this Bill. There is the political and legal case and there is the economic case. I want to deal first with the political and legal case which is concerned with certain war-time powers affecting our industrial, financial and commercial activities, which powers must be retained during the transition period if we are to avoid falling into chaos. The Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, was passed through all its stages in both Houses on 24th August, 1939, the day on which the House was recalled suddenly from its vacation to deal with the international situation that had arisen, and by 10.19 p.m. that night the Measure had been passed. This Act enabled the Government to make Regulations for securing firstly the public


safety, secondly the defence of the Realm, thirdly the maintenance of public order, fourthly the efficient prosecution of any war in which His Majesty might be engaged, and fifthly maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. It will be observed that all those purposes were closely associated with the war on which we were then embarking, and in the very grimmest days of 1940 a further Emergency Powers Act enabled the Government to make Regulations requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of His Majesty for the purposes of the Act of 1939.
These very wide powers were granted by Parliament when the country was in dire peril from external aggression. The purposes for which various powers for the economic control were granted in 1939 are not those for which they will be required in the transitional and reconstruction period which we are now entering, and we accept the view that express Parliamentary powers must be secured for the continued exercise of economic powers for other than purely war purposes. This was recognised by the Coalition Government when it introduced a Bill which was ordered to be printed on 10th May, 1945, the day after the first revocation of a substantial number of the war-time Orders. I have a copy of that Bill with me and it is interesting to observe the names of the Members who sponsored the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council introduced it, and he was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) who I think was then Minister of Production, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan), who was then Minister of Supply, the then Attorney-General who was my immediate predecessor as Home Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Education. It will be observed that this Bill was at that time sponsored by three Members belonging to the Party now sitting opposite and by two Members supporting the present Government.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, I think it is only fair to inform the House that the Bill

was not the same as the Bill the Second Reading of which he is now moving.

Mr. Ede: I shall deal with that point in a few minutes. The main construction of the Bill was the same. There are only two important differences with which I propose to deal. After all, development ought to take place over as long a period as five months, and I hope I shall be able to show that the present development is a logical and necessary development from the very good start that was made.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Bill to which he has just referred was in war-time, whereas the Bill to which we are asked to give a Second Reading was introduced in peace?

Mr. Ede: I have already made it clear, I hope, that we recognise that we shall have to produce some justification in time of comparative peace, at least beyond that which we should have to advance in times when the country was at war. It was very strange that, while the war was still on, three of the sponsors of that Bill, three of the godparents, tried to do the unfortunate infant in, for as soon as the Caretaker Government was formed, the Bill was dropped. Hon. and right hon. Members who were here at the end of May will recall a somewhat lively Debate that we had on the occasion of the dropping of the Bill. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Aldershot, a godparent of the original Bill, is here to-day to witness the physical and spiritual development which has taken place in his godchild, now that we have rescued it from the untimely grave that he and his Friends had prepared for it, and are to-day presenting it, as a more robust youth, for confirmation.
There is undoubtedly a feeling that the Bill in its present form goes a great deal beyond what the original Bill did. As a matter of fact, there are only two important changes. The first is the introduction of the present Clause 2 and the second is the lengthening of the period of the Bill's duration from two years to five.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: There is another important difference. It will apply to services whether essential to the life of the nation or not.

Mr. Ede: If the hon. and gallant Member would allow me to develop my argument I might—[Interruption]—really, I am all in favour of short speeches but I cannot think that the hon. and gallant Member really thought that, introducing a Bill of this importance, I was just about to conclude.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The right hon. Gentleman sat down.

Mr. Ede: I sat down because he rose. I endeavoured to be courteous to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I do not think he should make that a grievance. By all means let us have good party fights but let us be quite certain that we get into trouble about something that is really essential. [An Hon. Member: "Do not get rattled."] I assure the hon. Member who said that that I am a long way from getting rattled. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman really wants information I am always quite willing to give it.
The Government have had to consider the position that was created by the last Government when they dropped the Bill and limited the further duration of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts to a period of six months from 24th August last. Those Acts will now expire on 24th February next. We have decided that we will not ask the House to continue them beyond that date. On 24th February those Acts will come to an end. We propose to move an Amendment on the Committee stage of this Bill to extend Clause 1 to cover demobilisation and resettlement, and the disposal of surplus material, matters which could have been dealt with by continuation of the original Emergency Powers Acts, but with which we clearly must now have powers to deal. This appears to be the appropriate Bill to deal with them. Thirdly, we propose to introduce as soon as possible an Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill, designed to keep alive for a limited period after February next such residue of those powers as will still be necessary in the transitional period but which would otherwise lapse on 24th February next. We must therefore have this Bill to replace our powers which would have been continued in certain circumstances, under a continuation of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts. We drop those Acts and for those purposes we are substituting this Measure.
Now I come to the economic case for the Bill. I would have hoped that there might have been general agreement that the Government must retain and use, during the transitional period, a number of economic powers granted to their predecessors during the war. This was pointed out in the White Paper on Employment Policy, Command Paper 6527, in paragraph 17, in which the Coalition Government said:
It cannot be expected that the public, after years of war-time restrictions, will find these proposals altogether palatable; and the Government have no intention of maintaining war-time restrictions for restriction's sake. But they are resolved that, so long as supplies are abnormally short, the most urgent needs shall be met first. Without some of the existing controls this could not be achieved; prices would rise and the limited supplies would go, not to those whose need was the greatest, but to those able to pay the highest price. The Government are confident that the public will continue to give, for as long as is necessary, the same wholehearted support to the policy of 'fair shares' that it has given in war-time.
That was the declaration to which members of all parties in the House at that time gave their assent and that remains the policy of His Majesty's Government on this matter. In Chapter II of that White Paper, issued with the consent of all parties in the Coalition, reference was made to the danger of an inflationary boom bringing with it social injustice and economic dislocation. In dealing with the danger that, in the transitional period, the production of unessential goods might interfere with the production of essentials, the White Paper pointed out, in paragraph 19:
It is not yet possible to forecast the length of the transition period during which the prevailing tendency will be for demand to outrun supply. The need to maintain large armed forces may prolong this period considerably.
That, we hope, is no longer a serious consideration, with the ending of the Japanese war. That part of the paragraph clearly envisaged the period between the ending of the European and of the Japanese war, but the paragraph continues:
Although the most pressing shortages may disappear and the most vexatious controls be relaxed, our main problem for a considerable time to come may be, not to avert mass unemployment, but to secure with a limited labour force an adequate production of the goods needed to improve our standard of living and to increase our exports. The immediate difficulties for our external trade


will be serious. We may be struggling to restore our exports while we are still at war with Japan and liable to provide help for the liberated territories.
While, again, the first of those problems does not confront us now, I imagine that most of us find that the second is at least as large as, and probably even larger than, we expected it to be. The paragraph ended:
We shall, therefore, be compelled during this period to regulate imports and to manage our exchange resources with great care.
That is the economic case, in its general terms. Now I desire, as I am sure the House would wish me to do, to particularise with regard to the economic controls that we desire to continue. I will take a few examples of State intervention in the economic sphere which we regard as essential, which depend, until 24th February, on the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, and which thereafter will have to come within the ambit of the Bill. First of all there are clothing, footwear and textiles. There is no hope that supplies can be increased rapidly enough to dispense with rationing for some time. To assure fair sharing, rationing must continue. This is based on the Emergency Powers which lapse on 24th February. Therefore we must get some powers to deal with that aspect of our problem. Conditions can be improved up to the point where restrictions will finally be removed, and, as supplies increase, rations will be augmented by reducing the points values of goods coming in larger quantities into the market. The ration will be augmented by reducing the points values of particular goods, by taking certain items off the ration and increasing the number of coupons. Exactly the same considerations apply to furniture and fuel.
Secondly, the demands on the building industry, I think it will be generally conceded, exceed the supply many times over. While this state of affairs exists, there is a clanger that prices of building materials will rocket into the economic stratosphere and that essential work on building houses, schools, factories and hospitals will be neglected in favour of luxury work undertaken by those with long purses. We must, in dealing with the housing question, which I am quite sure every Member of the House regards as the first of our domestic problems, be armed with the powers necessary to con-

trol the supply of the building materials which will be required. It will be necessary to maintain strict regulation of building work, under some re-enactment of Defence Regulation 56A, and of the prices of building materials and components under Defence Regulation 55. The housing problem of this Government, and in fact the housing problem of any Government that tackled the situation, could not be carried through without the use of those powers which, apart from the Bill, would lapse on 24th February next.
Thirdly, while world shortages exist and the present exchange position remains, we shall be compelled to maintain agricultural production at the very highest possible level. This can be done only by the continued use of about a dozen Defence Regulations which come within the provisions of the Bill. The House would probably like me to give some indication of the Regulations we have in mind. They are: 61 (1) (agricultural land not to be used for other purposes without the Minister's permission); 62 (power to direct with respect to the use of agricultural land and to evict bad tenants; 62A (power of local authority to cultivate land and to let land for allotments); 62B (suspension of restrictions on keeping pigs, hens and rabbits)—and anyone connected with local government knows that, if that particular Defence Regulation went, we might have some over-efficient sanitary inspectors who would make the keeping of those very valuable adjuncts to the food supply of the nation extremely difficult; 62c (facilities for drainage work); 63 (destruction of game and pests); 64 (destruction of birds injurious to fisheries); and 65A (suspension of prohibition on the sale of freshwater fish during the close season).
Fourthly, and most important of all, because of world shortages and our exchange position, inflation must be avoided. In any circumstances severe inflation causes gross social injustice, but it would be particularly reprehensible at the present time when successive Governments have encouraged great and widespread investment in Government securities. The immediate removal of economic controls would make an inflationary movement immediate and certain. We have, therefore, taken special powers in the Bill to provide for more effective and comprehensive price control. It was laid down by my predecessor in


office, in Debates in the last Parliament, that any continuation of this power under any such Bill as this must involve a greater measure of Parliamentary control. We have accepted that principle in framing this Measure. We propose that Parliament shall have a greater measure of control over the use of the powers granted than has been given under the Emergency Powers Act.
First, except for a limited period in respect of price control, the Bill confers no power to make fresh Regulations for the purpose of the transition period, but only a power to make any of the existing Defence Regulations contained in Parts III and IV of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, and of certain other Defence Regulations specified in the First Schedule, applicable to the new purposes of the reconstruction period and to make amendments in any Defence Regulations so made applicable. There will be in this category no new Defence Regulations except those dealing with price control. The existing Regulations which will be continued will have to be justified to the House. Second, the Bill is only an enabling Measure. It expressly provides a further stage after the Bill is passed when the Government, by Order in Council, will decide which Regulation should be used for transitional purposes. These Orders in Council bringing the Defence Regulations into the scope of this Bill will have to be laid before both Houses and will be subject to annulment by Resolution of either House. Third, the Bill also provides for the extension of existing Parliamentary control over subordinate legislation made under Defence Regulations. Not only are the Orders in Council bringing in Defence Regulations under the Bill to be the subject of negative Resolution procedure, but similar control is extended to cover Orders and other subordinate instruments of a legislative character made under Defence Regulations, both under the Emergency Powers Act and under the present Bill. That is a procedure which has not been required before.
Now we come to one of the contentious parts of the Bill, the duration of the Measure. The original Bill was for two years. I have had the privilege of being able to study what I imagine is some of the secret history with regard to this Bill, for on that famous day, 11th Sep-

tember, to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already alluded, there appeared in connection with this Bill in the "Evening Standard" an article by David Farrer, who is, I am credibly informed, private secretary to Lord Beaverbrook. That, I should have thought, was a full-time job in itself without his taking on the writing of articles in his Lordship's papers. This day also happens to be my birthday, and I was, therefore, somewhat gratified with the attention I received in his Lordship's paper at the hands of this gentleman who, I am informed, is his private secretary.
Now the Socialists have come to power, and almost their first action has been to give Mr. Morrison's baby artificial respiration at the hands of Mr. Chuter Ede. But the revived child is an altogether lustier infant with far greater potentialities for mischief.
After all, that is only the nature of infants. As they grow they have greater potentialities for mischief. The only thing that matters is whether the people exercising parental control over them know how to manage them or not. We have no doubt that while this infant is lustier—and I have no doubt that its godparents sitting opposite must feel gratified that it has developed so early—we intend to see that all the safeguards I have just mentioned are carefully applied to all its activities so that its power for mischief shall be made non-effective and its power for good shall be considerably improved.
We contend that it would be wrong of the House to make the country think that by the end of two years we shall have ceased to need the powers in this Bill to deal with the inflationary tendencies of the market and the shortages of supplies and materials that will be at our command. It is far too short a time, and one of the reasons why we sit on this side and hon. Gentlemen sit opposite is that the country takes the same view. I did not deliver a single speech in my constituency in which I did not advocate the powers in this Bill being revived. My constituency is an area which suffered most cruelly from the inflation and subsequent depression that followed the last war, and it has a keen realisation of the fact that this time, if we are to see the country through its difficulties, we have to take a much more realistic view of the aftermath of war. Food, materials and essential supplies will still be short. In some spheres we shall still be engaged in getting


a war distorted economy into its peace-time shape. We feel that by putting a period of five years into the Bill we are giving the country an assurance that we realise the difficulties with which they will be faced, and that we are determined that while shortages last and economic difficulties confront us the utmost efforts will be made by the Government to ensure that fair dealing as between one citizen and another shall still be secured by the State.
The House might perhaps desire that I should briefly run through the Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 enables any of the Regulations in Parts III and IV of the General Regulations and any of the special Defence Regulations mentioned in the First Schedule to be kept in being during the transition period and utilised to control and regulate supplies and services for the purposes, first, of securing fair prices and a sufficiency of those essential to the well-being of the community or their equitable distribution; second, of facilitating the re-adjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace; and, third, of assisting the relief of suffering and the restoration of distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of His Majesty's Dominions or in foreign countries that are in grave distress as the result of war.
On the Committee stage I propose to move a drafting Amendment in the first of the purposes I have recited to make it clear that the policy of securing a sufficiency of supplies and services essential to the well-being of the community can be applied whether or not in any individual case it is associated with price control. There are a number of supplies and services in which the distribution of the element in scarce supply is dealt with independently of price control. There are certain special Defence Regulations mentioned in the First Schedule, but I do not think I need enumerate them. If any point arises on them they will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Lord President when he replies.
The sudden ending of the Japanese war and the fact that the Emergency Powers Defence Act goes out in February mean that a certain amount of work in connection with demobilisation, reinstatement and the disposal of Government surpluses, which otherwise might have been effected under the Emergency Powers Defence Act

if it had been extended for a year instead of six months, will have to be carried out under this Bill. We propose making a further Amendment to make this clear among the purposes set out in Clause 1. In that way we feel that we shall be justified in allowing the Emergency Powers Act to lapse.
Clause 2 enables these Defence Regulations to be made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act for controlling prices of goods or charges to be made for services. This is the other important innovation in the Bill as compared with the Bill introduced by the Coalition Government. The Goods and Services (Price Control) Act enabled maximum prices and charges to be fixed only for manufacturers or for types of traders as a class. This involves enforcing uniformity in the type of products as in the utility schemes, or resorting to control by means of cost-plus and standstills, to which there are many objections. What is now required, as the range and variety of production increases with the transfer of industry to peace-time production, is power to differentiate price control according to type and quality by fixing maximum prices for particular products and particular businesses.
I want to say a word about restrictive practices. I know that this is a subject in which the righthon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot takes some interest, because I recall attending as an observer meetings at which I heard him express his views. Here again we adhere to the statement that was made in paragraph 54 of the Coalition Government's White Paper, that combines and agreements, both national and international, by which manufacturers have sought to control prices and output, to divide markets and to fix conditions of sale,
do not necessarily operate against the public interest; but the power to do so is there.
It has not been found possible to include a Bill on the subject of restrictive practices in the legislation of the present Session. Therefore, the Government include these powers in this Bill and intend to use them, particularly their powers of price control, to prevent anti-social practices such as charging excess prices, whether for materials or finished goods. Fresh Regulations for the purposes of this Clause can only be made while the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act remains in


force, that is to say, between the passing of this Bill and 24th February next; but any Regulations which have been made before the Act expires can be retained in force under the provisions of this Bill.
Clause 3 contains the necessary power to revoke or vary any regulation which has been dealt with under Clause 1. Clause 4 provides for extending Parliamentary control by negative resolution. Clause 5 makes it clear that the machinery provisions in the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts will apply to the Defence Regulations brought under the Bill even after the expiry of those Acts, and that the Bill can be extended to the Colonies. Clause 6 extends the powers of the Ministry of Supply under the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, to acquire, produce or dispose of "articles required for the public service." Those powers are at present limited to articles required by Government Departments or "for the needs of the community in the event of war," and the Clause extends them to supplies which the Minister considers it necessary to procure or control for the purposes which are set out in Clause 1. Clause 8 provides for the expiry of the Act after five years, unless its operation is continued after an Address has been presented by each House of Parliament praying for its continuance for a further year.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Is it not a fact that, by fixing the life of this Bill at five years, with the possibility of continuing it afterwards, the Government is admitting to the whole nation that it will be unable to end the shortages within less than five years, and is this not a confession of failure which will cast great gloom upon the whole country?

Mr. Ede: I hope not; I have not yet noticed that the nation has been holding an inquest upon us, and although it may do so in due course I am quite sure we shall prove a rather livelier corpse than the one which was examined last Friday. I do not think it proves anything of the sort. What it does prove is that we do not intend to allow the country in the years that lie immediately ahead to have a short hectic boom such as followed the last war and the subsequent deplorable generation of depression which stultified the lives of our youth and of the working classes in our great industrial areas. We are determined that on this occasion the

people are to be saved from the disasters that overtook them through the rapid lifting of control after the last war.
It will be noticed that this Bill applies throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, that is to say, to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I have been in communication with the Government of Northern Ireland and I desire to make a brief statement which, I think, will correctly set out the relationship between this Government and that of Northern Ireland on the issues raised by this Bill. The Bill applies to Northern Ireland, and I should explain that while certain of the purposes covered by Clause 1, Sub-section (1) may relate to matters falling within the legislative powers of Northern Ireland, those purposes cannot easily be dissociated from other purposes which relate to matters reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Bill accordingly applies to Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, and so far as the proposed power of control may affect services within the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, it is only put forward as an emergency measure arising out of the exceptional conditions in the transition from war to peace, and in the exercise of such power there will be full consultation with the Northern Ireland authorities.
I commend this Bill to the House and I desire to give hon. Members, in no matter what part of the House they may sit, this assurance, that as the powers can and should be dispensed with, they will be given up. We have no desire for control for control's sake any more than has any other Member of the House. There are, however, certain powers which must be retained and used constructively to guide the national economy through the difficult transition from war to peace. The present Bill provides the framework within which the Powers will be operated, subject to the closest scrutiny by Parliament. I think it will be generally agreed that among the issues that were raised during the General Election this issue of a planned economy was one of those which did in fact divide the two major parties in the country. We have received from the country an undoubted mandate, after full consideration, to arrange that for the period of the existence of this Parliament the economy of the country shall be planned. We are determined to carry out that mandate and to show to the


world that it is possible for this great nation, having reached a tremendous height in the sphere of military achievement, to reach the same height in dealing with the difficult problems that confront us in the transition from war to peace. We on this side of the House believe that in order to achieve that we must have the powers that this Bill gives us, and we confidently ask the House to allow us to secure the speedy passage of this Measure.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I am sure it would be the wish of the House that I should congratulate the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on his first speech as the Minister in charge of an important Bill, and that Bill the first important Measure put before the House by the new Government. I must say, however, that I regard the Home Secretary this afternoon as a rather dangerous man. His sincerity is so apparent, his courtesy is so spontaneous, his illustrations are so illuminating and his evasions are so ingenuous, that I feel we are likely to be lulled and cozened into an unnatural state of complacency when we are looking at a Measure which carries us so far as the one in front of the House this afternoon. Of course the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in saying, in a very nice and humorous way, that in the main the provisions of this Bill—and I must emphasise the words "in the main"—were agreed by the Coalition Government Ministers. The Bill differs, however, in rather more than one or two respects from the original Measure, and those respects, and the very wide scope of the Bill, require discussion and explanation.
But the Measure was in the main agreed, because I think it is undeniable—and the Home Secretary himself has largely used the dialectical method of knocking upon open doors—it is undeniable that when goods or services are so scarce that they cannot meet the reasonable needs of the nation they should be controlled or rationed if you prefer the word, by the Government, for by this means alone can a scramble be avoided. We all know that if there is a scramble, prices rise and inflation may begin. The consequences to the private individual, the housewife for example, of such a rise are too obvious to need explanation. It means, as the Home Secretary said, that those with the least money,

or those who desire to save, go short or go without. The consequences to industry are also serious, although less so than to the individual. They are serious because it may mean that those industries or companies which bid up the prices of scarce materials are not those whose production at this particular moment we wish to stimulate in advance of all others. They are, however, less serious in the realm of industry than in the sphere of the private individual because in the main those industries which can afford to bid up for scarce materials are those which see such an enlarged demand for their product that they feel they can afford it, and are also such that the scarce materials represent a very small part of the manufacturing cost or selling price of the finished product. In those matters a sort of survival of the fittest takes place and it is easy to exaggerate the evil in the industrial field. However, I agree that our economic position is so critical, and in no direction more critical than in regard to our ability to pay for essential imports, our general economy is so artificial—using the word in the simplest sense—that few if any would deny to the Government their right to curtail our liberties very considerably for a limited time.
I must, however, remark, as the Home Secretary has made some play with this point, that Socialist doctrine condemns on every occasion any attempt by individuals to mitigate some of the evil effects of competition, and there are some evil effects. One of the evils to be combated is competition for materials or services. But however that may be, the general thesis is, in my opinion, unassailable, provided that this totalitarian curtailment of liberty, provided that this stifling of competition, provided that the expunging altogether of the theory that variations in price lead to a distribution which synchronises and coincides with the needs of the public—provided that all these things are recognised as evils—necessary evils I agree in the immediate future; and we must beware that a transitory and to some extent abnormal necessity and scarcity are not made the excuse, by a sort of side wind, for building up a permanent policy and regarding that policy as a nationally healthy and desirable evolution.
Suffice it to say that we on this side of the House are in the main in agreement with this Bill. We are to some extent


reassured by its very Title—it is called "Supplies and Services Transitional Powers Bill"—and the words "Transitional Powers," if they mean anything, at least mean that the powers are not going to be permanent. It seems obvious that the House will be given an opportunity, when our present discontents are lessened, of discussing in a clearer economic atmosphere the vices which this curtailment of personal liberty and these great impediments to trade will bring with them. Accordingly we shall not seek to divide the House on the Second Reading.
I must now turn to the three main respects in which this Bill differs from that which was agreed by the Coalition Ministers, or, on the other hand, in which its provisions seem to us to be so wide as to require special comment. The three differences are, broadly, the circumstances, the scope, and the duration of the Bill. First of all, in regard to its circumstances, which the Home Secretary very wisely rather glossed over. When this Measure was discussed in the Coalition Government we were still at war with Japan, and, if my memory serves, for the purposes of planning the length of the Japanese war was estimated as about eighteen months to two years after the end of the German war. I think that point is an important one for the House to remember, for two reasons. It partly shows the fallibility of national forecasts and national planning, but it also means that the life of the Bill was intended to be broadly the same as the estimated end of the Japanese war, or perhaps, if I am not strictly accurate, not more than six months after the end of the Japanese war. At the risk of getting a little out of sequence in dealing with the Bill, I would point out that this estimated end of the Japanese war has a broad significance when we look at Clause 6, in which the Minister of Supply is empowered to produce or dispose of articles required for the public service wherever he considers it necessary or expedient to do so. This gives, for a period of five years and with no relation to war needs, unlimited power of State trading to the Minister of Supply, power to set up industries with the taxpayers' money in order to compete with the people who pay the taxes. The Clause, which was desirable during the continuance of actual war, appears to me to be wholly in-

applicable to the circumstances of peace, and the Government will have to make a very strong case to justify the Clause in its present form. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point in greater detail when he replies to the Debate. I turn to the second point, the scope of the Bill. The Government inherited a Bill. The Home Secretary referred to a baby, and said it was a lusty baby.

Mr. Ede: That is what the "Evening Standard" said.

Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman endorsed it. I hope he has not a Borstal institution in view for it. The Government inherited a Bill from the Coalition Government and that Bill contained Clause 1, which was quite precise about the objects for which these powers were sought and for which they were to be used. To compress the Clause, they were to secure a sufficiency at fair prices, to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce, and the relief of suffering at home and abroad. I think the House will recall how comprehensive are the powers which can be taken under Defence Regulations under the aegis of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act. Under it, for example, the Executive may authorise "the taking possession or control, on behalf of His Majesty, of any property or undertaking; the acquisition, on behalf of His Majesty, of any property other than land; and authorise the entering and search of any premises and provide for amending any enactment, for suspending the operation of any enactment, and for applying any enactment with or without modification."
Moreover, under the Act of 1940 persons were required to place themselves, or might be required to place themselves, their property and services at the disposal of His Majesty. Those are extraordinary powers taken for purposes of war.

Mr. Ede: I gathered the right hon. Gentleman said we had extended Clause 1, but Clause 1 of the present Bill is exactly the same, word for word, as Clause 1 of the old Bill.

Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman misheard me. I am well aware that Clause 1 is exactly the same. My remarks have relation to Clause 2. Those extraordinary powers were taken for purposes of war. I am discussing what are the powers which Clause 1 now gives. We are asked to leave those powers at the


disposal of the Government during a period of peace. It is at this moment that we begin to realise why this is a Home Office Bill. Simply because the Home Secretary spends so large a part of his time dealing with police, prisons and penitentiaries, and my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has had so long and successful an experience in this type of administration, they really must not think that those are the sovereign remedies for all ills, and particularly for industrial ills. The Coalition Government recognised that for a very short period after the end of the Japanese war, these comprehensive powers might be necessary, and consequently the present Government inherited Clause 1.
But they were determined to go a bit better than the best, and obviously they would not like it to be thought that they had slavishly followed the policy of their predecessors; so they brought in Clause 2, which widens to an almost limitless extent the scope of the Defence Regulations. And what an extraordinary term "Defence Regulation" is when we are at peace and when the defences which this House ought to be thinking about are chiefly the defence of the personal liberty of the subject and defence against incursions by the Executive into the rights of discussion and control by the House. In Clause 2 very wide powers have been taken, and I am still not quite clear, even after the explanations of the Home Secretary, what is the object of these limitless powers. It appears to me that Clause 2, discarding the jargon of Parliamentary Bills, which is a substitute for the King's English, seems to say, in common parlance, "Clause 1 is really only pulling your leg"; because in this Clause 2 the Government seek powers—and here I come to the Bill—
whether or not such Regulations are necessary or expedient for the purposes specified in the said Sub-Section (1).
This singularly unfortunate Clause is the first one which the present Government offer to an astonished House. They ingenuously say, in spite of all that the Home Secretary has done to try to remove this impression, "We here wish to take power to control for control's sake." If hon. Members will examine the Clause they will see that I have not exaggerated in any way in so describing it. Turning back to Clause 1, may I remind the House—and this is an industrial point—

what happened, and what can happen now, under Regulation No. 55, which I believe is still in force. It gives the Government powers to regulate or prohibit
the production, treatment, keeping, storage, movement, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of articles of any description";
and as if this were not comprehensive enough, the authorities may also provide
for any incidental and supplementary matters for which the competent authority thinks it expedient for the purpose of the order to provide.
Those words hardly look to me like a drive to expand our trade. On the subject of these very wide powers, it is necessary to do more than generalise. I want to do more than state how restrictive they are. I want to give some practical examples of how these powers will work out when applied to our peace-time trade and industry, and to contrast how widely different they are when they are applied in peace-time from their effect in wartime. In my opinion, based on a wide experience of this matter, it is quite impossible for a central government authority in peace-time to allocate materials upon any other system than rough and ready guessing, and these rough-and-ready guesses are very apt to defeat the objects which prompt them.
In war time the allocation of raw material to most producers is not on the basis of rough-and-ready guesses, for the reason that the Government itself is the buyer of an immense range of products and services. When the Government allocates such and such a tonnage of steel for the manufacture of 25-pounders, it is not a guess because the Government is the buyer of 25-pounders, knows how many it wants and what the date of delivery should be. The Government can allocate cotton for the manufacture of Service dress, but it can only guess at what allocation is appropriate for ladies' cotton dresses for export, and it has to guess even at the expansion of the home demand. In short, the nature, scope and timing of demand in peace time is no longer capable of those nice calculations which right hon. Gentlemen and I were making a short time ago during the war.
At this time we all recognise that an expansion of our export trade is one of the first national objectives, but our ability to export depends upon a number


of things. One of them is the price at which we can offer to sell abroad. That price must be competitive, and as a general rule prices for export are not competitive unless the home market is, so to speak, behind the export and absorbs a large part of the manufacturing costs and overhead expenses. Therefore, the apparently beautiful and snow-like simplicity of trying to increase exports by the Government saying, "You shall not have materials for this production for the home market, but only for export, "is smudged and blurred and utterly destroyed by this simple fact, because without allocations for the home trade market prices for the export trade will not be competitive.
I want to tell the House also how these things will work out in peace time as seen from a little less idealistic angle. For example, the Government say to exporters, "You must show us evidence of your intention to export the finished product before we will allot to you raw material which we are denying to others.'' Is that sensible? It seems to me to be quite sensible; but, unfortunately, the foreign customer who is going to import goods says something very much of the same kind. He says, "Show me the actual goods. I have not seen them for six years. Have they kept up with the times? Give me assurances of the moment when you are going to produce them, and then I will give you an indication, though not a firm one, of how much I will take and what prices I can give. "This is no fanciful illustration. If hon. Members want confirmation they can get it in the export trade. How many times in the experience of exporters does it happen that raw materials cannot be obtained unless evidence of export is given, and how often is it that the export cannot be made unless evidence that the raw materials are forthcoming can be given to the buyer? Some people call this particular situation a dilemma, others call it a vicious circle, and others call it a bottleneck; but, believe me, exporters are accustomed to use rather more forcible phrases about it. At the best, and even supposing that the Government reached the right decision or the right guess, they must inevitably take an unconscionable time in doing so. They cannot guess lightly or frivolously, they must weigh the evidence, collate the documents, scrutinise the evidence of the witnesses,

marshal the whole business and open a drumfire of minutes and memoranda; otherwise it incurs, and generally rightly incurs, a charge of wasting precious materials or being unfair to one applicant as against another.
Time and tide wait for no man, not even His Majesty's Government, and we know the immense time that these things take. Unfortunately, this instance is greatly over-simplified and presupposes that the exporter has only to deal with one Government Department, but it is rarely so. Even to make an export it is necessary to obtain a building permit from the Ministry of Works, and the Ministry of Works wants to know whether the Ministry of Supply is going to grant the raw material before it grants a building permit. Then an engineer has to be sent abroad to clinch the deal and must have a priority passage from the Ministry of War Transport, and spend a little more foreign currency than he is allowed and must have permission from the Treasury. The Treasury wishes to know whether the Ministry of War Transport is going to give priority transport, and the Ministry of Works, if it has to give a building permit, will want to know if the Ministry of Supply has given a permit for the raw material to be issued. All this is graced by the dignified name of "National Planning."

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: There is also the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, which makes the list longer.

Mr. Lyttelton: I admit that this Ministry greatly extends the system of control. I do not want to exaggerate, but these are commonplaces known to every exporter. I think that hon. Members who do not know the deep seriousness of my nature may think that I am trying to make a joke but I am not at all. But these things, in my experience, happen to exporters every day. It is called "National Planning." To me it sounds like the old nursery story of "The house that Jack built." Perhaps I should not use such a phrase but should say "the house that Jack did not build," because we know that, as he is a private individual, the Ministry of Health will not allow him to build a house at all.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I inquire of the right hon. Gentleman


whether all these reasons he is giving are reasons why he is supporting the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not followed the argument. The argument is, that for a very short time we must accept these evils but I am trying to show that they are evils. Therefore, it is an argument which supports my contention that, instead of building them into a Measure to last five years, they should be built into a Measure which lasts for one or two years. There is another important aspect of the matter on which I must touch—these Regulations. Part IV of the Defence Regulations runs to 120 closely-printed pages and requires an army of officials to frame them, to follow them up and to enforce them. Every trading and manufacturing concern in this country doing a substantial business, has to keep a highly-paid staff to watch the Government Regulations, and has to be in constant consultation with lawyers, greatly to the benefit of the legal profession, to follow whether they are keeping within the law, and to keep up with the flow of Regulations which pour from the Government machine. All these things mean costs, and all these costs undermine to some extent our ability to regain our export trade.
My final point on the scope of the Bill—and the Home Secretary has not dealt with this—concerns Clause 5. In this Clause the new temporary powers for the acquisition of land which has been affected by Government use or damaged by the Government are extended from two years after the end of the war to a minimum period of seven years in all. This may be an oversight, but if it is not, it extends for a period of seven years, the uncertainty under which both the owner of the property and the industrialist now labour. The Requisitioned Land and War Works Act was passed this very year by the Coalition Government and the Act has a life of two years. The decision of the present Government is to prolong this to seven years apparently and once again to face the fact, as they will have done, and will probably do in other matters, that they cannot hope to solve these problems as quickly as their predecessors. It is no good the Home Secretary denying this charge. Here we have it again—two years in the original Bill, and now seven

years. Moreover, if my memory serves me, a member of the Labour Party at the time of the passing of the Bill, suggested extending the war period.
I turn to the third of my three points—and in many ways the others lead up to this—which is the duration of the Measure. I have dealt with the altered circumstances and the wide and limitless powers which are sought. Now I come to the last. It has been extended to five years. I see no justification—and the Home Secretary made the most frightful defence of the five years I have ever heard—for it. I should have thought, now that the Japanese war is over, we should have looked to a curtailment of the original two years. The original Measure was only expected to be in force about six months at the very most after the end of the Japanese war. Surely, the statesmanlike thing to do would be to take one or two years, and come back to the House for further powers if the Government could satisfy the House that the circumstances demanded a prolongation of this most unfortunate and unpopular Act.
I must also remark, with due deference to the Home Secretary, how infelicitous it is for the Government to point out that there can be no return to liberty or plenty for five years, because that happens to be just the maximum life of this Government. Will not a handle be given to the cynical to say that the Socialist Government do not see a return to liberty and plenty until they have been defeated? On seeing the five years' period myself I was tempted to say, "Was Herbert also among the prophets?" We think that this Bill is not necessary, that the powers it takes are a dangerous restriction of the liberty of the subject and a cluttering impediment to business in normal times, and we consider the period of five years is far too long and shows a defeatist attitude on the part of the Government. We would not like it to be said that the only successful part of the building programme of the Government lay in their ability to build prisons and penitentiaries for industry, and we urge very strongly that these prisons and penitentiaries should be of a temporary and not of a permanent character.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Holman (Bethnal Green, South-West): I hope that the House will bear with me in this, my first attempt to


address it. In my constituency of South-West Bethnal Green, there is to-day a consciousness of the immense value of controls and rationing as they operated throughout the war period. In this particular constituency, that period is viewed as one in which the people have been more prosperous in terms of real things, than they have ever been during this century. The average inhabitant has been better fed and clothed, but, I regret to say, owing to enemy action, he has not been so well housed. The legislation which this Bill proposes to prolong would not have been so good from their point of view, if the conditions had been similar to those of the period 1914–18. That was the second most prosperous period that that constituency has had, but it was greatly inferior to the period of 1940–45, owing to the fact that wages crept upwards following intense inflation. During the remainder of the period of restricted supplies, the functioning of the same controls, or the same type of controls, the regulation of prices, and rationing must go on.
Perhaps I may say a few words about a particular control under which I operated as a merchant during the last six years, as being an example of a satisfac-factory control and one that has fulfilled, and is to-day fulfilling, the functions for which it was set up—functions which I trust this Bill will enable to be carried on for such a period as may be necessary and one which, in the opinion of those best able to judge in the trade, will be long. I refer to the Paper Control under the Ministry of Supply. That control had an extremely difficult job to perform owing to the fact that paper in one form or another is vitally necessary to the country. I do not know how this House would proceed for a day without the use of paper. It has been termed one of the vital essentials of civilisation.
I speak with some knowledge of this business during the first and second world wars, although in the first world war I was absent from business for some three and a half years in France, but I kept in touch. During the first world war, when there was little or no control, the price of one particular commodity in this business rose from £14 a ton to £250 a ton and dropped to about £100 a ton immediately after the war, and then rose again to £175 a ton during the three years that

succeeded it and thereafter, during the next three years, dropped back to £28. That post-war process took between five and six years—nearly three years of intense inflation and then about three years of intense deflation, and that is what we are asking shall not be allowed to happen to-day. I deserted the Party that occupied these Benches in 1922 for this very reason, because it was a train without a driver, a steamer without a pilot, a motor car in which the occupants were in the back seat and the engines were running full out and going nobody knows where.
That was the position of this country after the last war. I venture to say, if I may still use this particular control as an illustration, that the more successful we are in reopening and redeveloping the export trade—and this particular industry, paper, must fulfil its part in the general export development—the longer the control will have to exist. It is a very simple economic proposition.
Let me take as an example the main export of the paper trade—the printings and writings for which the mills of this country have a world-wide reputation and for which there is a tremendous and unsatisfied demand, especially in the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand and other portions of the British Commonwealth. We can increase that export trade to surpass the tonnage of 1939 at a relatively early date, but only under the condition that the home market is kept somewhat shorter of supplies as a consequence. If you are going to keep the home market short of supplies, I suggest that, if you are going to leave off control, you create the very condition that makes for some degree of inflation. But controls perform other functions as well. They fulfil the function of regulating the use of the material, and I do not think that, in the interests of our export trade and its stimulation, any hon. Member of this House would object to continue to use the small, single-sheet notepaper for large portions of his correspondence because the double sheet is taboo under the control for reasons of internal economy. Similarly, he would not object to restrictions in margins in the publishing trade through a certain Regulation which limits the quantity of material that goes into the production of these goods.
Controls are essential, first, to limit the price to set a ceiling price for any com-


modity, during a period of shortage, and that restriction lies far less onerously on the industry if it is guided by the control itself in the usages of the material and in the prohibition of its use in wasteful or luxury directions, if need be. Naturally, the conditions vary as between one control and another. In one sense, may I tell my hon. Friends, I have felt a greater freedom in this war under control than I felt in any of the previous 20 years' business and manufacturing experience that I have had in this country. I only had a very short phase before 1914—about two years—in industry, but I lost completely that sense of any reality of policy between the two wars. I felt that there was drift, and I trust that now, in the continuation of controls, they will become more and more generalised, less and less difficult from the point of view of detailed returns which will not be insisted upon as time goes on.
When we compare the valuable possibilities, as well as actualities, in so many of these controls, as general guides and stimulators of exports, it is gratifying to see, only in the last few days, that materials have been granted in extra quantities on the condition that the firms began to pay attention to the export trade. Exports should become a prominent example of the way in which controls can be a good thing. I am convinced, from my experience of this particular control, that controls have been operated very closely in consultation with the industries and trades for which they are acting as controllers, and perhaps there has been one advantage in having, in so many of these controls, people who have been prominently associated with these trades. There has been a very close understanding of the needs of the trade, and the best possible action has been taken in order to bring about smooth working between the control and the traders.
I am going to say that, unfortunately, a real return to peace-time conditions inevitably must work somewhat slower. We start with the raw materials coming in to this country in limited quantities, and with controls necessary for their equitable distribution between the manufacturers concerned. We have to create an export trade out of these materials sufficient to pay for these credits, and, at the same time, to build up a currency reserve to carry on buying further materials. A short-sighted view in the next two or three

years means lack of work in our factories through lack of materials in every direction. So you get the real imports, the export trade rebuilt, you build up credit and currency reserves and your trade begins to revolve with ever greater speed, but you cannot dash into it shortsightedly. In this export policy, you are bound to maintain a certain degree of shortage in the home market. Ignore exports, and you can rebuild the stocks in Britain very rapidly and there could be an apparent super-abundance for a year or two, but you will not then have the foreign currency available for raw materials through which the industrial machine will continue to operate. When I try to buy a single machine, and I am quoted two years for delivery, I wonder how are the bulk of our industries, outside engineering, getting on when their mills are working the same plants six years older to-day than they were in 1939, and when it will take far more than two years to get this part of your war-time industry back to the level of1939. But even 1939 is no criterion. It is essential that we should go far above the level of 1939, and it is going to take far more than two years to reach that peak of efficiency. To build our export trade is going to be easy in the first year or two, but more difficult as time goes on and world stocks are replenished. I thank the House very much for their kind and indulgent attention.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Molson (The High Peak): It is my privilege to congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman) on the fine maiden speech he has just delivered. It will, I am sure, be a source of great satisfaction to his constituency to read to-morrow what he has said and to know that he has been able to bring into this discussion of controls that intimate knowledge of the subject through personal experience to which this House always listens with respect and attention. I hope there will be many occasions in future on which, when the hon. Member has special knowledge of the subject, he will intervene in our Debates and he may be assured that his speech will always be welcome as it was to-day.
There is one aspect, in particular, of this Bill to which I would like to pay special attention. During the last Parliament, I was associated with some of my hon. Friends in trying to ensure that Rules


and Regulations issued by Ministers and their Departments should be brought under the critical survey of the House. We recognised how necessary it was for powers to be given to Ministers to issue Rules and Regulations in order to give effect to the general policy of Acts which had been passed by the House, but we did view with great suspicion and distrust the very large number of Rules and Regulations which were poured out during the war, some of which affected the liberty of the individual and others of which affected his economic activities.
On a number of occasions we raised this matter with the present Leader of the House when he was Home Secretary, and, on the first two or three occasions when we did so, he resisted all our requests that the power of the House over this delegated legislation should be increased. It was only in May, 1944, that, on behalf of his colleagues in the Government, he accepted the proposal which we had made that all the delegated legislation which is to be laid on the Table of the House should be scrutinised by a Select Committee appointed by the House for that special purpose. We regarded that as a change of heart on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He had on many occasions said that the very wide powers which he exercised were only justifiable in war and that, when the emergency came to an end, he would favour increased Parliamentary control over these powers. It was with these conditions which we have been pressing so long, in our minds, that when this Bill in its earlier form appeared, we felt that it represented a very great measure of advance and acceptance of the view for which we had been contending.
I would, therefore, like to welcome very cordially Clause 4 of this Bill, which says that Orders and other instruments of a legislative character which are made under Defence Regulations will, in future, come before this House and may be prayed against. It represents a very great increase in the control of the elected representatives of the people over the delegated legislation under which they have in the past been so largely ruled. Therefore I welcome that Clause as a change of heart. I hope that it means that the Leader of the House has now in some degree modified the views which he held, or, at any rate, which some of his col-

leagues in the Government expressed on previous occasions, as to the desirability of extremely wide Rule-making powers being entrusted to the Executive without any control by the House of Commons.
There are two respects in which, as has already been pointed out, this Bill differs from the earlier Bill introduced by the Coalition Government. There is, in particular, Clause 2, which enables the Goods and Services (Price Control) Acts of 1939 and 1943 to be amended by a Defence Regulation and it widens the scope within which regulation of prices may take place. I welcome this extension of the powers. During the last Parliament, some hon. Friends of mine were interested in what we believed to be the profiteering that was taking place in funeral charges, and we approached the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was President of the Board of Trade and asked him to exercise his powers to regulate the price of funerals. We had ascertained that the London County Council was able to obtain a very satisfactory service at a very much lower price than is ordinarily charged to the public, and we were very much concerned at what appeared to be the unreasonable prices being charged. The right hon. Gentleman, the then President of the Board of Trade, was unable to take action in that matter because the service in question did not come actually within the scope of the words of the governing statute. I consider that if these powers are taken—and they are necessary as has been admitted by everybody—then I think it is desirable that the Government shall be able to exercise those powers in all cases where it is necessary for them to do so and not only in those "essential to the life of the community." When the National Insurance Bill comes to be put on the Statute Book, it will be of the utmost importance that the death grant of £20 shall not be entirely swallowed up in excessive funeral charges. Therefore I definitely welcome this extension of the wording of the Bill in order to give powers which I believe would be necessary to prevent an abuse of that kind.
I feel that this Bill in some respects is carrying on a tradition which goes back 20 years. It was a Conservative Government under Mr. Baldwin that in 1925 set up the Food Council in order to inquire into any cases where it was


believed that excessive prices were being charged for food. It was a subsequent Government, in which the Conservative Party was strongly represented, which, when it was setting up the Agricultural Marketing Boards, created the Consumers' Committees which were empowered to consider whether the agreements entered into by the Marketing Boards provided for fair and reasonable prices. I feel, therefore, that these powers which will be taken by the Government in this Bill, are not in their scope more than are reasonably necessary in order to protect the consuming public against the charging of excessive prices and to give assurance of supplies being adequate. Therefore I welcome the Bill so far as its scope is concerned. I think it would have been better if it had been confined to two years, as was the case with the original Bill, and it would have been possible for it to be continued by Resolution of the House had it been necessary to do so.

5.34 p. m.

Mr. Hurd: I want to put to the House one or two points that occur to a countryman on studying this Bill, and I hope that I may have the kindly tolerance that the House always shows to a Member who is making his first speech.
In moving the Second Reading, the Home Secretary told us that there were about a dozen regulations affecting food production which would be continued for five years under this Bill as it stands. It is really remarkable, knowing the country, how tolerantly the war-time regulations and controls have been accepted and how smoothly they have worked. In the country, the master and the man on the farm, and the neighbours in the village know each other as human beings, and I think that our relationships are always rather closer than those which generally obtain in the towns. I think that controls were more irksome to us perhaps, than to some townspeople, but they have worked, and out of the many thousands of directions which have been served on farmers, to plough grass fields, to grow extra potatoes, to grow wheat and so on, very few have been disputed; they have been carried out loyally and they have been carried out successfully. But let the country make no mistake. The achievements in additional food production have not been due to orders.
If I may give one instance, in the county of Berkshire, part of which I have the honour to represent, the acreage of wheat has been doubled, the acreage of potatoes has been increased fourfold, and the milk production has also increased despite the war difficulties. That has been done by the team work of the whole of the farming community. The leading farmers, the leading representatives of the farm workers and the landowners, have given their time and experience freely on the war agricultural committees in order to get this increased production. It is thanks to them, rather than to any orders which were made under the Defence Regulations, or to be made under this Bill, that the country has got and will get the food it wants. During the war years there was a 70 per cent. increase in food production. As the Home Secretary reminded us in his speech, we need to maintain that production for some years to come, and therefore it is vital that we should maintain the team spirit which obtained for us this greatly increased production. For five years of the war it was my privilege to serve as one of the liaison officers of the late Minister of Agriculture with the war agricultural committees. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) has earned the lasting respect and gratitude of the country for the energy and drive that he put behind the work of those committees. He was tireless in travelling about the country; sometimes he was rather exhausting, and it is not surprising perhaps that at the height of the ploughing-up campaign the farmers of Somerset dubbed him "Rob the Ruthless."
But that phase has passed. I sense in the agricultural districts now some reaction. Members of the war agricultural committees—the men who operate the powers which this Bill will continue for five years—are getting tired; many of them have served right through the war years, and given three or four days of their time each week freely to this work. Some want to retire. Some members of the committees' staffs are looking around for other jobs which they think will be more permanent. There is a real danger of this team spirit being lost, and no amount of regulations will get this country the food it must have if we are unable to keep the team spirit going between the farmers, the farm workers.
owners and all concerned with the job of food production. I pray that the present Minister of Agriculture will not rely on these regulations but will see to it that the farming community knows the facts about the present food supplies and knows what the prospects are. If he puts the case fairly and squarely to them and asks for their full co-operation I am certain he will get the response that the country wants.
There are some changes needed in the structure and the functions of the war agricultural committees. There is nothing in this Bill which will stop the Minister making those changes, some of which should be made now. The Minister has already promised to review the possibility of setting up appeal tribunals to consider cases where a farmer is faced with dispossession. He was repeating a promise made by his predecessor, and I hope very much that will be done now. There are other changes which would bring the farming community itself into even closer relationship with the essential work of the committees, giving them even fuller responsibility. We know that the new Minister did a good job during the war as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, and he has the good wishes of all of us regardless of party. I hope he will be more successful in getting the full co-operation of his Cabinet colleagues in framing a post-war agricultural policy than his predecessor was in getting support from the Labour Members of the Coalition Government.
I support this Bill as a temporary measure to give the Minister of Agriculture time to re-fashion our agricultural administration in such a way that the country will have the prosperous and efficient agriculture it wants, and that those who live by the land—the farmers, the farm workers and the owners—if they do their job properly, will be able to count on a fair reward.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: As this is the first occasion on which I have had the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure I shall require the full measure of that indulgence which the House so readily accords a new Member on such an occasion. I am particularly glad to have this opportunity of supporting the Bill because, sweeping

as are its proposals, I believe its passage into law is essential for the programme for which this Parliament has been elected At practically every one of the election meetings which I have addressed in East Islington I urged that the war-time controls should not be suddenly taken off but that, just as during the war the resources of the nation have been mobilised and used for the good of the whole community, so, during the years of peace and so long as shortages of labour and materials continue, there must equally be a pooling of labour and resources and a control of prices to ensure fair and equitable distribution for all.
The intentions of the "caretaker" Government in this matter were clearly exposed at the end of May when, instead of introducing a Bill on the present lines as the Coalition Government decided, they introduced a Bill which made it quite clear that their intention was to divest themselves of the powers necessary to protect the people of this country from the perils of a scarcity market. Without adequate control of supplies and services we should soon find, as we found after the last war, a profiteer's paradise in this country. During the election campaign the Leader of the Opposition, in one of his least fortunate broadcast speeches to the nation, taunted the Labour Party with a love of controls for the sake of controls, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) repeated that taunt this afternoon. That issue was decisively settled at the General Election. This House and this Government have a clear mandate for this Bill; it implements the promise contained in the Gracious Speech that legislation would be
submitted to ensure that during the transition from war to peace there are available such powers as are necessary to secure the right use of our commercial and industrial resources and the distribution, at fair prices, of essential supplies and services.
This Bill provides machinery whereby the rationing of foodstuffs, clothes, domestic utensils, and the prices of all goods and services will be regulated and controlled while the existing scarcity conditions continue. Nobody likes ration books or queues, but they are minor evils compared with the inequalities and injustices that would otherwise result.
This Bill will also ensure the supply of building materials for houses, and the pro-


duction of furniture and household goods in adequate quantities to the general body of our people, in priority to production of luxury goods. It is true that this Bill confers on the Government unusual powers that hitherto have been justified only by the emergency of war, but the present economic emergency of the transition of war to peace is no less serious than it was during the war. Indeed, in some ways economic problems are more acute to-day than they were during the war. As to the length of time for which the provisions of this Bill will be required, it would be idle for anyone to pretend that the economic ravages of war and the gigantic arrears of production of goods for peace-time use will be made good within such a short period as two years. It would be misleading the electorate to convey that impression. Admittedly, the powers conferred by this Bill are of a far-reaching nature. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) made certain observations about delegated legislation. In general, I would agree with the view expressed by the Lord President of the Council made during the Debate on the Motion for the appointment of the Select Committee on Procedure, that for this Government or any other Government delegated legislation had increased, would increase and ought to increase.
But I would like to draw the attention of the Lord President and his colleagues to some of the criticisms which have been made about delegated legislation, because I believe it is the duty of members of the Government to consider those criticisms and take such measures as can be taken to correct them. The power which this House will confer by this Bill on the Government to legislate by Defence Regulation and Orders in Council is an unusual power, which carries with it unusual responsibilities. The advantages of legislation in open Parliament is that the process can be watched, observed by the public, reported and ventilated in the Press, and discussed before it becomes finally effective. It is not unreasonable that those who are likely to be interested in and affected by delegated legislation should have all reasonable opportunities of knowing what is proposed. I should like to invite the attention of the Home Secretary to the question whether it is really necessary, as is proposed under Clause 4 of this Bill, to provide that Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall not

apply to Orders in Council which the Government will be given power to make. Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, provided, not unnaturally, that before the Government legislated by Order in Council notice of their intention to do so should be given. It may well be a matter for consideration as to the length of such notice that is reasonable. I would seriously ask the Home Secretary to consider whether it is really necessary for the purposes of this Bill to exclude Section 1 of that Act, particularly bearing in mind that Section 2 of the Act of 1893 gives the Executive power, on the grounds of urgency, to proceed by way of provisional rule.
Then there is the duty of ensuring that full opportunities are given to the public of seeing and obtaining copies of Statutory Rules and Orders when they are made. Acts of Parliament may not always be intelligible, but they are always easily and readily accessible. The same is, unfortunately, not the case with Statutory Rules and Orders. There is, and has been, legitimate complaint in the past on the part of those who have to observe Statutory Rules and Orders, those who are bound by them, and those who have to advise on them, that it is sometimes impossible to obtain copies for several days after they come into force. Is there any reason why, on the Committee Stage of this Bill, an Amendment should not be introduced so as to ensure that printed copies of all Orders in Council are available before they come into force? I would like to say a word or two about the obscurity that one from time to time finds in some of these Statutory Rules and Orders. There, again, I think the long suffering public have a legitimate grievance, and I would urge the Home Secretary to take into consideration some of the recommendations that were made many years ago by the Committee on Ministers' Powers, generally known as the Donoughmore Committee, which, among other recommendations, suggested that the Parliamentary Counsel staff should be considerably increased. I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) when he pointed out that the public have been very tolerant about this matter during the war. I do not think the Government can expect that the same spirit of toleration will necessarily persist during times of peace


The hon. Member for The High Peak also referred to the provisions contained in this Bill, which are designed to secure more effective Parliamentary control over subordinate Orders and other instruments of a legislative character that will be made possible by this Bill. I regard it as highly satisfactory to note that, in future all such Orders in Council of the nature of public Acts will be laid before Parliament. One result will be to bring all such Orders within the jurisdiction of the scrutiny committee. I would remind hon. Members that experience has shown that the existing procedure for securing Parliamentary control over the Executive is by no means as effective as it might be and, in my judgment, ought to be. The Lord President of the Council will remember the incident of the Fire Service Regulations. Although an Act of Indemnity was passed by this House the question still remains obscure, whether those Regulations had the efficacy of law despite the fact that they were not laid before this House. I think the Lord President, who was Home Secretary at that time, threw out a hint to the House during the Debate on the Indemnity Bill that that matter would be considered and I do suggest that this is a fitting occasion to invite the Home Secretary or the Law Officers, or whoever is responsible, to make it quite clear in this Bill, beyond any doubt, that regulations which ought to be laid before Parliament are not valid unless they are so laid.
While, therefore, I welcome this Bill, which I regard as vitally necessary to implement the programme for which this Government had a clear mandate from the electors, I hope attention will be given to the criticisms which have been made in the past with regard to delegated legislation, and which will no doubt be made in the future unless those criticisms are considered. This Government will be judged not only by their legislative output but, equally, by their administrative efficiency. Decisions made by the rules and orders made under this Act will impinge closely on the public life of the community. It is the duty of this House to control the Executive. In normal times the House might well be criticised for entrusting these wide powers to the Executive. In my judgment the exceptional nature of the economic emergency justifies and requires this Bill, but at the

same time renders it increasingly necessary that Parliamentary control over subordinate legislation should be strengthened and upheld.
This country has never accepted, and never will accept, the doctrine of authoritarian government that was satirised in Pope's couplet:
For forms of government let fools contest, Whate'er is best administered is best.
Generations of Englishmen have fought and struggled over "forms of government," and I am sure that Members of this House, while granting the Executive the exceptional powers required by this emergency, will be vigilant to avoid the constitutional dangers latent in such delegation.

6.0 p.m.

Major Guy Lloyd(Renfrew, Eastern): I find myself in an unusual role to-day in rising to address the House with a bouquet in either hand, which, on behalf of the House—all parts of the House—I am privileged to present to the hon. Members who have preceded me. I feel quite sure that the House will be glad of the opportunity of welcoming the maiden speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) and the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher). It is obvious that the hon. Member for Newbury is deeply interested in agricultural questions, on which, indeed, he spoke with knowledge and ability. I hope we may hear him on many other subjects as well. I would like also to congratulate the hon. Member for East Islington on his most able speech, so moderately phrased, with which, in general principle, none can disagree. He also spoke with knowledge and I am sure the House will listen in future with particular attention to anything he may have to say to us.
I must say I have been amazed during this Debate, and I believe Members on the Front Bench opposite must also have been somewhat surprised unless they had pre-knowledge, at the way in which the Opposition is letting them off in connection with the proposals of this Bill. I think we have been most tolerant. I can only hope that the true feelings of this side of the House will be more strongly represented when other opportunities occur to discuss this Bill; otherwise the country will not have had its views on this Bill adequately expressed. It seems to me to be very appropriate


that the first Bill of the new Government should be in connection with controls; for, indeed, that was one of the major issues of the recent Election. But it is, to me, a most unfortunate thing that we should have been told to-day that we, on this side of the House—at any rate, it has been hinted—need not or ought not to have any particular objection to the Bill because certain Members on the Front Opposition Bench are supposed to be godfathers of its predecessor and prototype. The point about that surely is that the circumstances of the presentation of the two Bills are fundamentally different. At the time of the last Bill, in which, for instance, certain Clauses, such as Clause 1, had been duplicated, the Japanese war was not over, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. O. Lyttelton) made the point very emphatically, it was thought that it would take another one and a half years, perhaps two years, to conclude after the war with Germany. To suggest that we need have no particular objection to the major principles of this Bill because the Bill was framed in large measure, but in entirely different circumstances, by a Coalition Government and taken over, in some measure, by a "caretaker" Government of our way of thinking before the Japanese war was over is, to my mind, an argument not particularly convincing, and I repudiate it.
The manner in which the party opposite welcomed the introduction of its Government's first Bill was most noticeable. While the Home Secretary was making his most able speech, I counted throughout the whole of the time he was speaking not more than 23 of his supporters on the other side of the House, and on the benches above the Gangway, where the more senior and leading supporters might be expected to assemble, the largest number I counted was 12. I hope that the country will not hesitate to make a note of the fact that there was such a large attendance of Members to support the Government during the speech on the Second Reading by the Home Secretary [Interruption.] I do appreciate the honour of having a much larger attendance than the Home Secretary had to hear my speech.
My particular criticism of this Bill can be summed up fairly easily and briefly. It is, of course, obviously putting the

country in chains, and sending many people to penal servitude for some five years. I do not really think the House can possibly fully realise, and certainly the Home Secretary has not made clear, what immense implications are involved in this Bill. It is overwhelmingly sweeping in its effect and its powers over us all and over every aspect of our national life and over the individual daily round and common task of all. It is full of significance in that respect. It seems to me it is far too full in the tendency, which many of us in the last Parliament noticed was growing, of reference to previous legislation without giving adequate details of what that legislation is; in compelling us, unfortunately, in the future, if we are to do our job properly, to examine in full detail, all previous Regulations and Defence Regulations to which this Bill now acts as an umbrella. Throughout the Bill there is reference to previous legislation which is by reference alone. The right hon. Gentleman told us, after he had added and subtracted a bit, that there were 460 Defence and other types of Regulations on the Statute Book, and he took some credit for having removed some already. Four hundred and sixty in my opinion is still far too many, and yet we ought to know something about every one of this 460 if we are really going to give a proper Vote on this Bill, because everyone of those can be kept on by the Government, and we do not know whether it is wise or unwise that this should be so.
After all, the Explanatory Memorandum for a Bill of such far-reaching power is the briefest and most unsatisfactory piece of wording. It is far too perfunctory to be a proper explanation of such far-reaching power as we are asked to give the Government. Exceptional powers should surely only be demanded in exceptional circumstances. I would be willing to agree that exceptional circumstances may well exist for a while longer, but I cannot for a moment agree that these exceptional circumstances ought, at any rate, to last as long as five years, unless the Government make such a mess of things and the country gets into such a state, that there will be an exceptionally awkward and unpleasant condition to be faced five years; hence. Possibly the Government had that in mind.
I want to know whether or not these conditions which make the Government


feel that this Bill is essential are really likely to be in existence in three or four years' time. There would have been no objection on this side of the House had the Government asked us only to let the Bill go for two years, although the argument could have been put that that was a bit too long in view of the fact that we have peace and the Japanese war is over. To ask for five years is something to which this side of the House could not possibly agree, representing as it does many hundreds of thousands of people in the country who, in my opinion, object to the Bill in a much stronger way than has hitherto been represented in this House. Do we realise that irrepressible and definite Socialistic changes are to be made on most of us for the next five years, and for who knows how long after that, through the deliberate medium of what, after all, was a wartime expedient? Why use a wartime expedient, for which I remember the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister pleading with us in 1940—why use wartime Regulations—which we gladly accepted, for the freedom of our people, in the great emergency of war? It seems to me to be mean and wrong to impose these Regulations and the powers to have others as well for another five years in time of peace.
Were the late House of Commons aware that such a thing would happen when they were asked to pass many of these Defence Regulations and emergency powers? Not at all. Everyone, including Members on the other side of the House, believed that it was purely a temporary expedient. Now we are going on for at least another five years in time of peace. If that had been said at the time, what a howl there would have gone up not only from this side of the House. There would have been a howl from many Members of all political opinions. Now it can be done because of the huge majority on the other side of the House who love controls. It seems to me this is a very bad beginning for a Socialist Government in their first Bill presented to Parliament.
To take some details of the Clauses, such phrases are used throughout, as "essential to the well-being of the country." Who is to decide what is essential to the well-being of the country? [Hon. Members: "We are."] It is going to be

decided in a purely arbitrary way and with the most deliberate political bias—[Interruption.] It is quite obvious that is so. It is no good putting in the Bill "essential to the well-being of the country" if you leave to the Government of the day the decision as to what is essential. The Government have a right to do it, but we who judge them have no confidence in the Government now, and we find it very difficult to say that because they think something essential to the interests of the country the rest of the country, or at any rate very large numbers in the country would necessarily agree with them. What guarantee have we that this readjustment or control on industry to which we are now asked to agree will really be used for the requirements of the country? Who is to decide the requirements of the country? [Hon. Members: "We are."] Exactly. Therefore how can the Home Secretary expect us on this side of the House to have confidence in who is to decide the requirements of the country? How can we use war-time Defence Regulations for the purpose of imposing peace-time price control? Who would have thought in 1940, that we would be asked to use the war-time machinery of Defence Regulations for the purpose of peace-time price control? What connection is there between Defence Regulations, which everyone knew had to do with the war, and peace-time price control?
It is stretching things too far to suggest that this is an innocuous Bill to which no one can really object. I was shocked to find more than one hon. Member on this side of the House, including the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), using the expression that he welcomed the Bill. I want to make it clear that I do not. I hope the House will, at any rate, hear some pretty strong criticism of the Bill when we come to the Committee stage, and at this stage those on this side of the House should make it clear to the country that they do represent those who strongly object to controls being imposed, quite unnecessarily in many cases, in peace time, which were originally imposed under the stress of war. I hope I have made clear my point of view. I repeat that I was delighted at the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, who most forthrightly criticised the Bill on the grounds that it was bad and far too exaggerated and quite unneces-


sary. I hope that this side of the House will make it hot for the Government when we come to discuss the details later.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Collins: We are indebted to the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) in that this Debate has not so far degenerated into a mutual admiration society. I was impressed, on listening to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot, by his reference to the prisons and penitentiaries, which, in his imagination, were to last for five years. It recalled to my mind those lines:
Stone walls do not a prison make,
Nor iron bars a cage;
Minds innocent and quiet take
That for an hermitage.
It has seemed to me that during this Debate there has been a very considerable measure of agreement but that the one main difference has been in the point of the period of time. In my view that period is a measure of the confidence that this Government has in the success that will attend its efforts. The objection to that period lies largely in the fact that the objectors do not realise the needs of business for long-term measures, needs which are greater to-day than they have been at any time. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), in a maiden speech, in regard to agriculture. He spoke from considerable experience of war agricultural executive committees during war-time, and he referred to the smooth working of those committees, and the general acceptance of the regulations. It occurred to me that in that particular branch of industry five years is regarded as a very short term, and that general farming feeling to-day is that these measures must be strengthened. I repudiate the suggestion that the period of time is viewed with any degree of alarm by the farming community. They urge that war agricultural committees should be revitalised and reconstituted, but they do not object to regulations as such.
A reference was also made to the possibility of prior publication of regulations, but surely one of the most important points about the production or dropping of any regulation is that there should be no prior knowledge in the industries affected. Then there was also reference to the obscurity of some of the orders. I

agree that there are many occasions when the matter is likely to be complicated, but experience does show the care that is needed in the framing of these orders in order that they should do the job for which they are intended. It has been my privilege almost throughout the war to be connected with two industries which were very scattered and almost entirely unorganised. During the war I have been the chairman of a Committee which by arrangement with the Ministry of Supply has set up a kind of voluntary control with the very minimum of orders. In one of those industries there was some 800 small firms. They were given a very large task during the war, a task thought to be entirely beyond them, but by means of organisation, and without any introduction of machinery, without any increase of labour force, they were able to double their output of vital war stores.
The organisation which has done that in an industry which was formerly regarded as almost dead is still in being. Hope has been revived, and there is every prospect that with further Government assistance, which we hope for and expect, employment in that industry may be trebled. It is quite useless to talk of revitalising an industry when it can only have two years in which to look forward. There must be a longer period. Many of us on this side of the House have really been through the mill in industry, and in that way we have a distinct advantage over some of our friends on the opposite side of the House, who entered industry much as a boy at school would enter the sixth form when he should be going to "prep" school. We have the vital knowledge, the real grounding which tells us that any short-term planning or short-term arrangements will in all likelihood be bad arrangements. We feel that it is vitally necessary for industry, for employment, for the safe and sound government of this country, that the present regulations, as visualised in this Bill, should continue for the period of five years.

6.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I had not intended to intervene until the speech to which we have just had the pleasure of listening. I would say at once with regard to my own constituency, which is predominantly agricultural, that there are a great many amendments we want to see made to the


war agricultural executive committees. I believe I am speaking for the majority of farmers in saying that they want to see a right of appeal to an impartial tribunal from an eviction order, and that these arbitrary powers, which in the hands of the right people may work well, do not always work well on every occasion. I am not saying that my own war agricultural executive committee does not do admirable work. I think it does, but it is dangerous to give arbitrary powers and not to have safeguards.
I was not quite sure whether the Home Secretary, who is now back in his place again, was pleased with this Bill or whether he was not. He began by saying that he did not approve of control for control's sake. Yet there was applause from back benchers behind him when he spoke of the necessity for controlling industry very closely. Later he said that he commended this Bill to the House. I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman regards this Bill as a very necessary Bill, but a very unpleasant one, or whether he says "We really believe in a system of planned scarcity." Does he want to see abundance or does he merely want to set up a machine which may exist for a considerable number of years, based on the fact that there is to be scarcity? I regard it as fundamental that we should step up production so that there is abundance for everybody at the first available moment. I think it is a rather dangerous attitude to say that we shall all be hard up for everything we want for years and years and that therefore we are to set up a more or less permanent machine to make sure about the cutting of a very inadequate cake. I am all in favour of seeing that what we have is fairly divided but I think we should remember the main objective, which is to get prosperity back once more and get the wheels of industry turning so that there shall be no scarcity.
The kind of economic system that works under legal orders is not really a happy one. Take the case of the building industry, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman said that he disapproved of the cost-plus system. It is a vicious system, and if we forget our parties hon. Members will agree that there is little good that can be said of the cost-plus system which is now working in the building industry. I

have reason to believe that only about one-third of the production capacity is being produced by this cost-plus system—this information was from an authority on the subject—and as soon as we can get rid of it we should do so. A system which gives no incentive of any kind and under which an employer knows that the longer the job takes and the more it costs, the more he gets, is hopeless. If that is to be the planned economy with which we have to put up in the next five years I do not know when we shall get houses. I believe we will face a crisis in which we shall forget our parties for quite a time, because I do not think we shall get houses.
I would like to ask hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House whether they believe in delegated legislation or not. They have this vast majority but I think that although the country sent them back to power—unquestionably with great power—the country want them to govern. People do not want government to be carried out in offices and by hole-and-corner methods and by officials. They want it to be carried out in the open by their representatives who are answerable to them on the hustings, and who have to give an account of their stewardship. Like any reasonable person I feel that so long as there is the danger of inflation these powers must exist, but I feel that the moment it is possible to remove them it will be a good and not a bad thing to do so.
Therefore, I would very much prefer to see my right hon. Friend introduce into this House a Bill which will set up this machinery for, say, two years with power for its extension, if he likes, for three years, so that he can run his five years if necessary, rather than say he wants five years, because that looks as if he likes the system. I do not like the system. I do not think the hon. Member who spoke earlier was speaking entirely for the Government when he said that they liked the system. There are a large number of men in the Government and on the Opposition Benches who do wish to see a healthy economy with as much freedom for the individual worker as can possibly be obtained. I wonder if during the Committee stage of this Bill it would be possible for an Amendment to be tabled—not the one in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)—which would set a period of three years, with powers of ex-


tension for a further two years, if necessary. I am not at all sure that it would not get a certain amount of support in all parts of the House. I join with the hon. Gentleman who spoke before me in saying that I have some views to put forward. That is what this Chamber is for. We do not want speeches all on one side.

6.32 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I had not intended to join in this Debate, but I think I should like to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) and express the view, which is more widely held in the country than in this House, that these controls are detested, disliked, hated and abominated by the greater portion of the people of this country. I have heard many speakers on the other side, and some on this side, say that the people of this country like these controls. Queues, we are told, are not detestable—they are only a lesser evil. That was one of the observations we heard this afternoon. The situation would be very unreal if I did not take this opportunity of joining with the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew in repeating what public opinion has been saying much more vehemently. An hon. Member, earlier in the Debate, said he left the Conservative Party in 1922 because of this question of control. It is strangely paradoxical that I left the Socialist Party at about the same time, because I found it was not a proper custodian of human liberties. I joined that Party which had the honour of making a somewhat tepid protest against the further loss of liberty of the people of this land. This is the party which for half a century, since James Keir Hardie—whose name was not referred to when we spoke of the Tolpuddle martyrs—raised the banner of Socialism, and preached Socialism and the doctrine of freedom and liberty for mankind till it got into power. It is a significant confirmation of what Lord Acton had well said, that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Their first public demand since coming to power has been to ask this House of Commons to lay chains on the people of this country for five long years.
I am not a young man, but I was eager to believe that, having fought in two wars, I might look forward to the approach of three score years and ten

with a degree of liberty. What is the sentence pronounced on me this afternoon? I was born a free citizen, I have lived as a free citizen, and I have, as a soldier, been prompt to fight for this land of liberty. Yet, at the conclusion, I have no hopes that the bonds of serfdom will be lifted from me. Five years is the sentence which, if the consent of this House is obtained—as I anticipate it will be—will be laid upon us. These are sad feelings. Where is Robert Blatchford today? Where is William Morris? Where are those who laid the foundations of this movement which has now sold itself to the most authoritarian government of any government in the history of this country? We can go back to the government of the Kings or to the government of the Peers, but we will not find a government which attempted to impose measures of this character on a free people. This is a sad day for me because I find there have been only two voices raised on the other side, and hon. Members on the Front Bench know well that there is a case for human liberty and freedom, and that that case is being outraged and denied by the proposal to impose these five years of penal servitude on Britain.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I am delighted to hear my colleague and my old friend the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) holding forth with a passion and sincerity which will survive the inept acquiescence of the Party opposite. They are showing already the indiscipline of totalitarianism in the making. My hon. Friend was an excellent soldier and, like many gallant soldiers, be became bemused about civil affairs and joined the I.L.P. But that was in his youth, and, as with normal men, his brain began to progress, and so he left the I.L.P., and the stagnant paralysis of the Socialistic State. He became a successful man in a world of free society. Now he is an honoured Member of his House. Perhaps he is a relic. Perhaps his career is a reminder that as long as the Party opposite is in power, never can such a career be repeated. If hon. Members opposite find something to resent and to object to in a man starting with very little, and by being a gallant soldier and a good business man making good, then it only con-


vinces me that the Party opposite is a Party of despair and malnutrition.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the hon. Member that we are discussing a Bill and not a party?

Mr. Baxter: I would most certainly have come to the point of my speech if the Party opposite had not exhibited their opposition. Out of courtesy to new hon. Members, I was trying to explain the position. However, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
We were introduced to-day to an extraordinary Bill—extraordinary more in the length of its operation than in its contents—by the Home Secretary, a man who has spent most of his life in the study, and in the absorption and imparting of education. He was a most admirable Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education when the Butler Act was passed. All parties agreed that was a most marvellous achievement and one greatly to be desired if carried through on time. But to-day the Home Secretary has appeared before us as the arbiter on industry and trade of which, I am convinced, he knows practically nothing. It is, of course, difficult because Ministers are appointed for their qualities rather than for their particularised knowledge, and it is expected that they will acquire, in time, an intimacy with the problems of their Departments. Just what the Home Secretary has to do with trade is difficult to see, but what the Home Secretary has to do with restraint is very obvious to us since the days when the Lord President was his predecessor at the Home Office.
I do not want to detain the House, but would put one or two very important points. The period of five years has more than a passing significance because, within that period, there will be another General Election unless, of course, the President of the Board of Trade has his way and there is an indefinite prolongation of the life of Parliament. But supposing the President of the Board of Trade is not the guiding power, and there is an Election within five years, how convenient if this measure is still in force at that time. It is a law of nature that if one does not use a muscle for a long time, the power of that muscle disappears. If, under this Bill, people are taught for five years, as

they were taught in every speech by the party opposite in the General Election, that competition is wrong, and that personal achievement is anti-social, if the country, wearied by years of war, is told for a further five years that competition must lead to upward prices instead of, as is so evident, to downward prices, then it is possible that the party opposite may be returned to power, as it was in July of this year, by a public wearied beyond ordinary powers of endurance. I grant the party opposite that where Philip of Spain, where Napoleon, where the Kaiser, and where Hitler failed, they may kill the instinct for liberty in this country, simply because liberty becomes a legend which nobody remembers.
How has this country, this great little island, with no raw materials, and with only fishing and agriculture, which can be developed, supported 40 to 45 million people through the years? It has been done by the inveterate genius and leadership of the individual, by the genius of our bankers [Laughter.] That laughter from the opposite side is the blatant voice of ignorance. There used to be an expression "Safe as the Bank of England." I think that that expression will now pass out of currency. It meant "safe as the Bank of England as long as it was not under Government control." Go into the insurance markets of the world. Offer an insurance policy for Lloyds, which is private enterprise. Offer a British Government guaranteed policy or a Russian Government guaranteed policy in its place. The ordinary shipper of goods will pay 2 per cent. more for Lloyds than for any Government guarantee. So we see this turning against the great destiny of this country. We see opposite us the worship of mediocrity, by which the industrial convoy must follow the pace of the slowest ship, and the workers must set their standards to that of the poorest worker. Opposite is the party which, unless this Opposition rises to great heights, is going to bring achievement, progress and the victory of peace to a level which may indeed bring about what so many of our enemies have tried to bring about—the descent of this country to the status of a second-rate Power.
I would end with this thought to-night. This is a miserable Bill inflicted upon us by war and by a transition period. The five year period is inexcusable because


the Government intend to exploit it when the next General Election comes, and they intend to keep control. Above all, it is a confession that under a Labour Government shortages are to be not temporary, but part of the permanent life of this country.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Robertson(Berwick and Haddington): I did not intend to take part in this Debate, but I was prompted to do so because of the remarks made by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). This is the first occasion on which I have had the honour of speaking in this Assembly, and so perhaps hon. Members will bear with me while I deal very briefly with one or two of the points that have been made by the last two speakers on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh takes upon himself the defence of freedom. What I want to know is: of what type of freedom was he thinking? If it is the type of freedom we had in this country between the two wars, then I shall not defend that kind of freedom. I feel that my hon. Friends on this side of the House will be with me when I say that we are not prepared to defend the kind of freedom which allows the monopolists to exploit the needs of the nation by an economic scarcity, which allows the bankers to draw great tribute from the needs of the nation. Nor do we believe that the kind of freedom that we want to build in this country of ours is that by which the unemployed man has to waste his time at the labour exchanges and under which his house will be invaded by the means test man. That is not the kind of freedom on which the Socialist movement was built.
The Socialist movement was built on the kind of freedom for which we stand to-day—the freedom to give every individual the right to work for the community, to have joy in working for the community and not merely for selfish interest. That is the kind of freedom for which we intend to work in this country. The country has given us a great mandate because the people believe that we are prepared and ready to put into operation a planned economy which will give to our people freedom from want and scarcity. That is precisely the underlying element in the present Bill. If we were to do what at least some of the speakers

on the other side have indicated, we would throw off this and that regulation and say to the financiers, the landowners and the industrialists, as the Government said after the last war, "The best way to prosperity is to give enterprise a free hand, and let it go ahead." We all know what happened. We have tragic memories of that. For a short time we had an artificial boom. Then came the inevitable depression, and, as the Home Secretary very truly said, we are not going to allow that to be repeated in this country. One of the reasons the people have returned an overwhelming majority of Socialists to this House of Commons is because they fear that kind of thing. Those of us who are back benchers and the Government intend to see that that mandate which was given to us by the country as a whole will be carried out. We must maintain those controls until such time as we will be able by our national effort to modernise industry and organise that plenty and surfeit for which we are working. We will achieve it. I have not the slightest doubt about that. We are not going to be stampeded into throwing off controls until the time arrives when it is possible to do so.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is my pleasant duty to congratulate the last speaker on the manner in which he has successfully surmounted the ordeal—and it is a great ordeal—of making a maiden speech. Whether it is a greater ordeal than addressing you, Mr. Speaker, for the first time from this place, I at this moment am inclined to doubt. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that we have had an interesting and at times a lively Debate. In the course of it no one has sought to dispute that it would be impossible, without plunging this country into chaos and confusion, to celebrate the conclusion of the war by the immediate abolition of all defence Regulations, Rules and Orders, but personally I have no doubt that, although the Home Secretary has stated that the Government have a mandate for a planned economy—which apparently means unlimited controls—the majority of the people in this country would welcome the restoration of their pre-war liberties at the earliest possible moment—liberties sacrificed in the cause of war, which can be revived only by the revocation of these Defence Regulations and which now ap-


parently are going to be withheld for at least another five years.
With regard to Clause 1 of this Bill, there has not been very much criticism. The Home Secretary in opening the Debate started off by giving, as I think he said, a proof of his sincerity with regard to the removal of Regulations. Something like 200 have been abolished. Then he went on to indicate that the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act would expire next February, and he said that that, of course, means that we must have this Bill which provides for the adaptation and continuance of Defence Regulations. In case any fall by the wayside we are going to have an Emergency (Transitional Powers) Bill, and under this Bill we can have a multitude of Orders. I begin to wonder whether, in fact, we are going to gain a single thing by the repeal of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act. The proof of that pudding will be in the eating. I desire to make no criticism of Clause 1 because it seems to me to be necessary that some of the Defence Regulations should continue for the purposes stated. I think the hon. Member for East Renfrew (Major Guy Lloyd) thought one of those purposes was slightly vaguely phrased, but in my opinion it would not be right for the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Eric Fletcher) to assume that because this Clause was in the Coalition Government's Bill and backed by Conservative Members, and because that Bill was not carried into law before the Election, if the Conservative Party had been returned to power, that Clause would not be carried into law now.
When we come to Clause 2 we come to a Clause of an entirely different character. It is the first Clause for which the Government are responsible. No doubt they feel very proud of it. We have been told that it is not a Clause providing for control for control's sake. In his speech the Home Secretary, I think, made one reference to it—he may have made more—when he said there must be some power of differentiation between different traders with regard to prices. I am not quite sure what he meant by that, but when one reads the Clause there is nothing in it concerning the purpose for which these controls are to be exercised. There is not one word about the purpose for which the controls are to be exercised in the ex-

planatory memorandum. Indeed, when one looks at Clause 3 (1) (b) one sees the words:
…for the additional purpose specified in Sub-section (1) of that Section"—
That is, Sub-section (1) of Clause 2. You will there see that the additional purpose is the purpose of controlling. I submit that although the Home Secretary may say that this is not control for control's sake, the actual words of this Clause for which the Government are responsible make it quite clear that that is the only object for which these controls are sought to be imposed. The object appears to be to control, whether or not such Regulations are necessary or expedient for the purposes specified in Clause 1.
Let us consider for one moment what that means. It means to control, whether or not such Regulations are necessary
to secure at fair prices a sufficiency of those essential to the wellbeing of the community or their equitable distribution";
to control, whether or not it is
to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce
All that the Explanatory Memorandum has to say is:
Hitherto price control by Defence Regulation has only been possible in connection with the control of production and distribution.
Now the war is over it is obvious we are going to have more controls fastened upon us. We are told that new Regulations can only be made under Clause 2 while the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts are in force. We have not been told, although I think it is the case, that any Regulation made under that Clause between now and next February, will last for at least five years, without any opportunity for this House to reconsider the operation of the Regulation during that period.
Not a single word is in this Bill as to the purposes for which these Regulations are wanted. There are ample powers, in my view, under the Price Control Acts to make Orders as to the prices of goods, and charges for services in relation to goods. A mass of Orders has been made under those Acts, and I would ask the Government, "Why do you now want these additional powers?" We have had no clear explanation on that point, and I hope that the Lord President of the Council will explain in detail when he winds up why these exceptional powers are required.
In that attractive electioneering document called "Let us face the future" and put out by the Socialist Party, a document which, of course, did much to induce the population to let the party face it—and which has brought the party right up against it—it is said that "they," meaning the Tories,
accuse the Labour Party of wishing to impose controls for the sake of control. That is not true, and they know it.
All I can say is that, on the face of it, the Government have given conclusive proof in the Bill of the truth of that accusation. Nothing that has been said to-day has altered my opinion in that regard.
What sort of controls are there to be under Clause 2? What sort of differentiation? Look at the orders under the present Acts for price control. Hon. Members will see that they cover a wide variety of subjects. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon this matter at a later stage, but, as I see it, it is quite possible under the Bill for the Government, if they so desire, to control a small shopkeeper out of existence while preserving the vested interests of the co-operative socities. I am not suggesting that it is the intention of the Government to do such an unfair thing, but I contend that they would have power to do it under this Clause, and I suggest that every small shopkeeper would sleep far happier at night if the Government did not get that power.
Under the Clause the Government can control all
charges made for services of any description.
I gather that the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), whose speech I regret I did not hear, approved of the Clause on the ground that it would make some provision for controlling the price of funerals. I dare say that if that control remains in force for five years the Government may be extremely glad that those prices are controlled.
Those are wide words and it seems to me that they are wide enough to give the Government power to control wages by Defence Regulation. Are not wages payments for services? So we here have a Socialist Government, not a Tory Government, seeking to obtain power to interfere with the free negotiation between trade unions and employers. [Laughter.]
It is no use laughing about that matter, because, under the words of the Clause, the Government are seeking to take power to do that thing. It is no use the Government saying that they will not do it and that they do not want that power. My point is that they could do it; and if they would not do it, then they are taking wider powers than are needed. It is no use the Government complaining of pressure on parliamentary time if they use that time in seeking to obtain powers which they do not want.
I hope that the Government will agree to some modification of the Clause in Committee. If they would agree that the powers in Clause 2 could only be used for the purposes stated in Clause 1, that would remove a grave defect from the Bill. I do not suggest that some new price control Orders might not be necessary, but they can be made, can they not, under existing Acts? They might be made by Regulation, but why Defence Regulation? We have never had that point explained to us and the only reason I can see for doing it by Defence Regulation and not by Regulation is that, under the Emergency Powers Acts the Government are authorised by Defence Regulation to give authority to take possession of any property or undertaking, to enter upon or search any premises, to require persons to place themselves, their lives and their property at the Government's disposal, and to amend, suspend or modify any Act of Parliament. I can see no reason myself, and perhaps the Lord President of the Council will give one, why we should not have perfectly ordinary Regulations in time of peace and why we should have Defence Regulations which would entitle those powers to be exercised. If we are to have Defence Regulations, why is Clause 2 of the Bill necessary? By Defence Regulation the Government can amend any Acts, including the Price Control Acts. So much for that point.
In my submission no case has been made for the granting of these unlimited powers. I welcome, as I think other speakers have on both sides of the House, the provisions for increased Parliamentary control over Regulations and Orders, but I would point out that this House has no power to amend those Orders. It has to take them or leave them. That power of supervision is not a sufficient substitute for the consideration by this House of


proposals on the Floor of this House with the power of Amendment. I regret that, in spite of all that has been said about the Bill and the power it gives for imposing control, not one part of it is concerned with the setting up of any machinery for the regular scrutiny of existing Regulations or for the revocation of those that are no longer necessary. It would seem that once a Regulation is made it is likely to endure for a period of at least five years.
Now I come to a part of the Bill which I regard as of very particular importance. I was surprised not to hear the Home Secretary refer to it at all when he opened the Debate. I refer to Clause 5 (5). There we find a most important provision, innocuously phrased and tucked away, looking very harmless. It says:
For the purposes of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, the expression 'war period' shall include any period after the expiry of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, during which this Act is in force.
What does that mean? Under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, the words "war period" mean the period during which the Emergency Powers Acts are in force. That Act as the House will remember gave new powers, which were expressed in the Act which was passed by the Coalition Government at the beginning of this year as temporary powers. There were new powers for the acquisition of land by Ministers, temporary powers for the acquisition by local authorities of land which they had occupied for one purpose or another during the course of the war, new powers to stop up or divert highways and temporary powers for the maintenance and use of Government works on other people's property and on commons.
I remember that in the course of the Debate on that Act we had considerable discussion as to the power of the Government to acquire open spaces and commons, and great safeguards were put in the Act against that happening. But all the powers in that Measure were temporary powers which could only be exercised within two years of the end of the war period, that is to say, within two years of the end of the Emergency Powers Act. What is the effect of this Amendment? All those powers will be

exerciseable for at least seven years and all these temporary powers will become almost permanent. What will that mean in practice? It will mean that Leith Hill will languish in its present condition for all that period. It will mean that the whole of the South Downs will remain as they are now and nothing can be done about it. It will mean that anyone who has let his land or house be used for Government purposes may within seven years find that property taken away from him by compulsory acquisition. I looked at Hansard to see whether, when this Coalition Measure was introduced, there was any Socialist Amendment to extend the period during which such property could be acquired. I found that there was nothing of the sort, but there was an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) to reduce the period of two years after the end of the war period, to one year. That was opposed, and I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health making one of his usual eloquent speeches on that occasion. I would like to remind the House of his words. He said:
Let us suppose that my hon. Friends succeed in their intention, with which I sympathise, because the owners of property ought to be able, at the earliest possible moment, to know what their future will be. I believe it is the worst possible situation for individuals, owners of property or no property, to have no practicable future before them knowing that at any moment the Government may step in and do something about which they cannot make the slightest possible conjecture."—[Official Report, 19th April, 1945; Vol 410, c. 528.]
I, for once, find myself in complete agreement with the Minister of Health, and it was with great regret that I find that he must have lost some of his persuasiveness in that, now he is a Member of the Government, in the Cabinet, in the first Bill produced by the Government there is a provision for the extension of this period during which the powers can be exercised by five years. I hope that the Lord President will explain the necessity which has apparently arisen between last May and now for extending that period so much. I would have thought it was better to wait and see how things go on under that Act before asking for any extension. I have no idea what the reason is, but I cannot help feeling that when the people of this country realise the effect of this second change in the Bill which was a Coalition Measure, and when they


realise that this progressive Government with their Mandate, about which we have heard so much, now think that it will take five more years to do what they thought could be done in two years when they had Conservative colleagues to assist them, then, indeed, the control of funeral prices, about which we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak, may have a useful part to play.
It seemed to me that the Home Secretary's argument in support of this Bill really fell into two categories. There was first the economic argument for the continuance of some Defence Regulations for a short time. Then he seemed to put his case on entirely different grounds, namely, that, quite apart from that, there was the necessity to carry out by Regulations the mandate for this planned economy. I must confess that I was a little reassured to hear him say that he would be engaged in getting the war-distorted economy back into its peace-time shape. It does not seem to me that, if he is engaged on that task, as I hope he will be, he can also be engaged in the construction of this land of dreams, a land which is not going to be a land of reality, this Socialist Utopia about which we hear so much.
In so far as this Bill contains any good, I suggest it is a legacy from the Coalition Government. In so far as it is new, I regard it as thoroughly bad and pernicious. It is a sad and sorry start of this Government's legislation programme. We shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill in the hope that the Government will accept Amendments on the Committee stage. They have already indicated that they are going to table some Amendments. We shall do our utmost to see that no unnecessary fetters are put on the necks of the British population during the next five years, or at all.

7.17 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This has been a day of congratulations to hon. Members who have addressed the House for the first time, and I would like to join in the congratulations which have been offered to them. I would also congratulate the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who has just addressed the House from the Front Bench for the first time. Those of us who have had that experience know that it is also a bit of a trial, but I think that we can all say, irrespective of

party, that the hon. Gentleman has acquitted himself well and made a valuable and effective contribution to our Debate. If in the course of my observations he does not get quite the gentle treatment that a real maiden speech should get, I do not want him to think that it in any way diminishes the respect and admiration that I have for the competence with which he has just discharged his task. He said that he began to wonder whether the cause of liberty was going to be improved by the repeal of the Emergency Powers Act.
It is true that, broadly speaking, the powers that existed under the Emergency Powers Act in the social and economic field will be continued under this Bill for the purposes that come within Clause 1 (1). But, after all, the hon. Gentleman need not be so depressed. The cause of liberty has already gained by the revocation of many war-time emergency powers. Already, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in his lucid opening speech, hundreds of Defence Regulations have been revoked, some by him and some by me; and I think it is true that actually one was revoked in the cause of liberty by the "caretaker" Government. We between us have repealed hundreds, and the "caretaker" Government, to do them credit—and they are entitled to full credit—have contributed to the cause of liberty by the revocation of at least one Regulation. Moreover, 18B, which was the most serious invasion of civil liberty, has gone. 2D, which was a danger to the liberty of the Press—at any rate the naughty ones of the Press—has gone. The black-out has gone and all the Regulations associated with it, and even double Summer-time has gone. I could quote a lot more. Let not the hon. Gentleman be depressed—because liberty marches on. We have this Bill because liberty marches on. This Bill is in the true cause of liberty.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from a very admirable publication—perhaps it is not for me to say so, since I was, so to speak, its editor-in-chief—called "Let us face the future." It may be that at the next General Election we shall produce another one, and call it Part 2. If you are to organise a government properly you ought not always to be looking backwards, you ought to look forward. I would not expect that to occur to the


Conservative Party, but nevertheless it is true. The hon. Gentleman quoted a sentence from this document which says that they, the Conservatives, accuse the Labour Party of wishing to impose controls for the sake of controls. He went on to affirm that that accusation was true. I think that while he was about it he might have quoted three more paragraphs from this pamphlet, and, for the purpose of putting them on record and in order to put that sentence into its proper setting and proportion, I would like to quote those three paragraphs, which state certain principles of public policy. The first one says:
But the war in the East is not yet over. There are grand pickings still to be had; a short boom period after the war, when savings, gratuities and post-war credits are there to be spent, can make a profiteer's paradise. But Big Business knows that this will only happen if the people vote into power the party which promises to get rid of the controls and so let the profiteers and racketeers have that freedom for which they are pleading eloquently on every Tory platform and in every Tory newspaper. They accuse the Labour Party of wishing to impose controls for the sake of controls. That is not true, and they know it. What is true is that the anti-controllers and the anti-planners desire to sweep away public controls, simply in order to give the profiteering interests and the privileged rich an entirely free hand to plunder the nation as shamelessly as they did in the 1920's.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, in view of the very interesting electioneering speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman, it will be in Order for subsequent speakers to discuss charges made in this pamphlet?

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Further to the point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Since you were good enough to call me to Order in the course of my speech, may I ask what is the degree of licence allowed to Back Benchers as opposed to Ministers?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had allowed the hon. Gentleman a great deal of licence and the hon. Member who spoke before him, and I must accordingly give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to reply to the remarks, that were made. In regard to the first point of Order I am afraid that we must stick to the Bill. The Lord President of the Council is entitled to answer points which were made against him, and beyond that I do not think he will go in this Debate.

Earl Winterton: Further to my point of Order. Would it be in Order if any of my hon. Friends desired to do so to refer to the points which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward and discuss whether or not there is one single word of truth in them? May I have an answer to that point of Order?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is "No."

Mr. Morrison: This seems to be causing a certain amount of feeling and, I am sorry to say, a certain amount of heart-burning to the Noble Lord and his colleagues. Therefore, out of sheer humanitarian feeling, I will quote only one more paragraph. That paragraph reads as follows:
Does freedom for the profiteer mean freedom for the ordinary man and woman, whether they be wage-earners or small business or professional men or housewives?''

An Hon. Member: Or doctors.

Mr. Morrison: Why try to get me into trouble with somebody else? The paragraph continues:
Just think back over the depressions of the 20 years between the wars, when there were precious few public controls of any kind and the Big Interests had things all their own way. Never was so much injury done to so many by so few. Freedom is not an abstract thing. To be real it must be won, it must be worked for.

An Hon. Member: Who wrote that?

Mr. Morrison: I had a hand in it, and I thought it was very good. Anyway, it was effective, which is more than can be said for certain other literature circulated at that time. All that I have quoted is related to controls, it is about controls, and therefore it is relevant to this Bill. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was anxious to know why we have brought Clause 2 in, and it seems that this Clause 2is the proof in the minds of the Front Bench opposite that we do want controls for the sake of controls. Clause 2 is needed because the Goods and Services Price Control Acts do not cover the field adequately, and we want to cover the field adequately. Those Acts only enable maximum prices to be fixed for a class or description of goods, and do not enable prices to be controlled for individual manufacturers or for goods made by them. Clause 2 could not be confined to the purposes set out in Clause 1, because to some extent it will be necessary to


control the prices of non-essential goods in some cases. It is a matter of tidying-up and expanding the powers of price control.
It does not, however, follow from the fact that we have expanded powers of price control that those powers will be used in every conceivable case, and that is true of the Bill as a whole. We are taking powers; this enables us to do certain things, but it does not follow that because we take such powers for a period of five years or more that we shall therefore use all the powers during all the five years. Surprising as it may seem to hon. Gentlemen opposite, they can rely upon the Labour Government conducting itself with good sense and wise discretion in that regard. That was realised by a lot of other people recently.
Clause 5, as to which the hon. Gentleman also raised some points, is simply a consequence of the intended duration of requisitioning powers under this Bill. The Requisitioning (Land and Works) Act gives an opportunity to requisitioning authorities to acquire requisitioned land after the properties are given up during a period not exceeding two years, while they negotiate and so on. If the requisitioning powers go on for five years after the Emergency Powers Act expires, the opportunity is postponed until then. Really it is desirable to have these powers in the field of requisitioning because they are related to the general economic powers of the Bill which would be deficient if the powers of requisitioning were not tidied up.
I think that covers the principal points made by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. I ought to refer to other speakers who have made points in the Debate. The Debate was opened on the Opposition side by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton)in what, if I may say so, was a curious speech. He really argued that the Bill and all it contained was in and of itself evil, pernicious and objectionable, but he said that they could stand the evil and the pernicious and the objectionable for two years, evil, pernicious and objectionable though it was, but that it was a dreadful thing to impose it on us for five years and possibly more—because I warn you we have power to extend the Bill by affirmative Resolutions by both Houses of Parliament. If the Bill is as bad as the right hon. Gentleman affirmed

—and he painted a gloomy picture, though he used some charming sentences, of a good capitalist flavour but nevertheless of very good phrasing, which we all thoroughly enjoyed, as we usuallydo—I cannot follow why it should be tolerable for two years as against five years. [Interruption.] It was contemplated, when the Coalition Government introduced the Bill, that it would operate for a period after the war had finished.

Mr. Lyttelton: The point I made was that scarcity is bad if it continues for two years, and it is very bad if the Government have to confess that it must continue for five years.

Mr. Morrison: With great respect, that is irrelevant to the argument I am putting to the House and on the whole irrelevant to the argument that the right hon. Gentleman used. If this Bill is thoroughly bad in principle, content and nature, as the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have made out, I want to know why the right hon. Gentleman ever allowed his name to be associated with the Bill when it was introduced by the Coalition Government. [Hon. Members: "There was a war on."] It is no good saying, "There was a war on." It is no good saying things that are not very wise and not very rational. When this Bill was brought in, it was contemplated that it might well operate for a substantial period after the end of both the European and the Far Eastern wars. [Hon. Members: "No."] Oh, yes, it was. It was not by any means entirely dependent upon the continuation of the second stage in the war. The Bill was for two years, and it contained provision that, on affirmative Resolutions of both Houses, it could be continued from year to year. There was no definite decision by the Government that the Bill as an Act should not operate if the Far Eastern war came to an end. The truth is that the Conservative Party has got itself into the most complete muddle on the question of controls. It does not know where it is. It did not know where it was in the last Parliament, and it does not know where it is in this Parliament. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have been tearing the Bill to pieces, attacking the arguments and the economic doctrine behind the Bill, attempting to prove that it is a shocking Measure, destructive of all the virtues of free competition and what not, and the cause of freedom, and


then at the end of the day, having painted a dreadful picture of the Bill, they say they intend to assent to the Second Reading of it. I cannot follow their attitude. It was the same with the King's Speech; it was full of the most dreadful doctrine from their point of view, and yet, in the end they assented with complete unanimity to the Address. What those who supported them at the election will think of this performance, after the speeches critical of control by a certain noble Lord known to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Beverley Baxter) and others who led the anti-control campaign in his newspaper, I really do not know. I tremble at the thought of opening the newspaper to-morrow morning. I cannot follow why, if the Bill is as bad as they say it is, they should think of letting it go through without a Division and merely content themselves with moving an Amendment, as presumably they will do on the Committee stage, to reduce the period of five years to one or two years. I think the right hon. Gentleman's speech was illogical and inconsequential, and that it was not a useful contribution to the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman was willing to strike but not willing to wound. I think that is very sad.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: There are many of us here who would very much like to divide against the Bill, except for this, that the Bill is like the convalescent period after a severe operation in which you have to do without things, such as drinks and food, in order to restore the constitution. The only thing is that the Lord President of the Council says that the convalescent period shall last for the rest of the natural life of the patient. That is where we disagree.

Mr. Morrison: Well, that is where you are. The right hon. Gentleman said that the circumstances were different when the Bill. was first introduced. That is true. The Far Eastern war is over, whereas the war was still proceeding when I, as Home Secretary, introduced the Bill of the Coalition Government. All the arguments about there being a war on have ceased to operate. There is not a war on; not one that is noticeable. Therefore, logically, if the case of the Coalition Government was that there was a war on, that in itself is a conclusive case for the Opposition dividing on the Second Read-

ing of this Bill at a time when there is not a war on. The right hon. Gentleman said the scope of the Bill has been increased, and he referred to Clause 2. That is true. The scope has been widened, not only in Clause 2 but in other respects also. The duration has been extended. Yet, notwithstanding all these things and this strong indictment, there is to be no Division against the Second Reading of the Bill. I invite the Opposition to do their duty, stand by their principles and vote against the Bill. My hon. Friends will be delighted to add another Division to the excellent record they started a bit earlier on.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the word "defence" in Defence Regulations. I do not mind what you call them. If some other name will please the Opposition and be not too difficult in drafting, we might consider a concession on the point, but Defence Regulations by any other name will sound as sweet to those who believe in them. The right hon. Gentleman said that the defence should be a defence of the liberties of the subject against incursions of the State; but we want some defence of the liberties of the subject against the incursions of the property owners and profiteers, and we are going to have that defence under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman painted a picture of long-drawn-out inquiries before a person could get a certificate to obtain raw materials. That might have happened under the former Minister of Production, but it will not happen under the present President of the Board of Trade, whom we all know as a man of action and rapid decision. Things will be better, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman. He said that the cost of administration to the Government and to private trade will be terrific. I venture to suggest that the advantages of the planned economy we are seeking will be worth the amount of money that will have to be spent upon it, and the amount of money will not be excessive. He also said that the Bill was dangerous, cluttering-up and defeatist. I think it was an anti-climax when the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I listened with very great interest and pleasure, finally said that nothing was to happen as far as a division was concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) raised some points about the Rules Publication Act.
It is a rather involved matter, as he will know, and I will not go into it to any extent to-night, but I remember that it did arise out of my little adventure with the National Fire Service Regulations. I was hoping that would be forgotten and never mentioned again, but it was too much to hope for. The matter is being examined with a view to seeing what would be the right remedy. I do not think it is pressingly urgent at the moment, but it will not be forgotten. I think I have now covered the chief points that were raised in the Debate.
It is argued that we ought not to have this Bill for five years, and I want to give some reasons why we should have the Bill for the five years period, it being understood that we would not of necessity use the Bill or every feature of the Bill or the Regulations under it for the whole of the five years. Nobody responsible in economic thought, I suggest, thinks that economic controls can be swept away at once. A time limit of between two years and five years is suggested in Parliament to-day and will be in Committee, but the Government, in our opinion, would be failing in their duty to the country if they adopted the expedient of a two years limit as a superficially easy way out of the unpleasant job of saying plainly that we must be prepared for transitional difficulties of an economic character to last for more than a year or two. We do definitely say that, in our judgment, the time the difficulties of the transition will last will be nearer five years than two years, and possibly more than five years. We have had an enormous war with great economic disturbances, there are great difficulties as regards international trade, and it is bound to take time for things to straighten out in the way we would like them to do. If we limited the Bill to two years, it would be tantamount to telling the country that the Government seriously thought that there was a good prospect that by the end of two years we would have got over the scarcities and the other difficulties of the transitional period, completed the urgent priority tasks of reconstruction at home, staved off the danger of post-war inflation, and solved in large measure our export and our exchange problems.
I do not think that any serious student of economic affairs can possibly believe that that is all going to take place within

two years. Unhappily, it is going to take materially longer than that. It would be wrong to mislead the country so utterly on the facts. There has been too much glossing over of unpalatable facts in the past, and this Government refuse to follow the bad example set by other Governments. In our view the public can and must be trusted, and we propose to trust them with the facts as we see them, even if they are sometimes unwelcome facts. Moreover, it is wrong to raise false hopes. [Interruption.] It is raising false hopes to suggest that these things are all going to be got over in less than two years' time, and that is what the Opposition wants us to do. It is being said constantly that at the Election we raised false hopes. I do not want to get far into the Election, but I assure the House that as far as I was concerned—and I heard of other hon. Members doing the same—we repeatedly addressed our constituents in precisely the terms that Ministers have been addressing the House and the country; and certainly what I am saying to the House to-night is exactly what I told the electors of East Lewisham, who returned me to Parliament by a 15,000 majority, which was a very pleasurable experience. It is wrong to raise false hopes and to suggest to industry and others affected by controls—it would be a very serious thing to do—that they can make their plans on the basis if not of a certain yet of a possible clean sweep of emergency powers within the short period of two years. It would be wrong for the Government to impede its own planning for the next few years by introducing an element of uncertainty about the duration of the administrative framework on which so much of it must be based.
The right course for the Government, in my opinion, after taking the most expert advice and giving the matter most careful thought, is to make up their minds for how long, on a realistic but not necessarily pessimistic view, the transition from war to peace was expected to last, having regard to all the factors which affect it, some such as the housing problem and the enormous back log of consumption primarily domestic in character, others, such as the balance of payments, by no means wholly under our control. The Government would not be justified in coming to Parliament and saying with careless optimism that they thought that there was a reasonable prospect that


within two years consumption goods would be so plentiful that there would be no danger of inflation or that the housing programme or the export trades would not go short of essential raw materials if no controls were maintained. There is in our view reason to expect, on the contrary, that, while things will be much better by then, it will be a longer job than that.
That is our view and therefore we come to the House, asking, I admit, for very wide and considerable powers. I admit that they are wide, that they are considerable and sweeping, but they had better be considerable and, if necessary, sweeping, rather than otherwise, so that we shall not be confined and cramped in our administrative economic work. I assure the House that the Government will seek to utilise these powers with sense and with discrimination for the constructive purpose of helping the country. Let it be remembered that, although we use this word "controls," and although politicians and the Press always debate them, in the sense that they are restrictive and negative, many controls, even though they have a negative form, are really constructive in their purpose. Take, for example, agriculture and the power to direct what kind of crop shall be grown and what the land shall be used for; or take the control of various raw materials. They may well, and very often do, have a constructive and positive economic purpose.
We want these powers for positive purposes and not in order to have the fun of saying to the people that they shall not do this, that or the other, or that if they do they will be guilty of an offence under the Defence Regulations. We do not want to do that, but we must have adequate powers. We are going through a tricky and a difficult economic transition period, and we ask for the powers we need, big and wide powers, I admit, but I can give an assurance on behalf of the Government and the Ministers concerned, that it will be our wish to use these reasonably and as constructively as we can. Then we have strengthened the Parliamentary safeguards. It is true that this was also done by the Coalition Government; but it was done on my advice. We have introduced into this Bill additional Parliamentary safeguards—very considerable additional Parliamentary safeguards. Whereas sub-

ordinate orders under regulations under the earlier Act could not be reviewed by Parliament except by special arrangement, all the subordinate orders of a legislative character made under those Regulations will now be capable of being prayed against by either House of Parliament. Therefore, the degree of Parliamentary control is being increased.
We think that this Bill is necessary in the public interest. We believe that it should last for five years. If we do not want it for that period or do not want parts of the Defence Regulations, we will scrap them. They will go. They are not going to last longer than the public interest requires, but if we want them after five years, we shall come to Parliament and produce our Motion to extend the Act for a further 12 months, and, if necessary, for further periods as long as the public interest requires. It is the public interest which is going to be the test, and not any private interests that are trying to rattle this Government. This Government are not going to be rattled. They are going to get on with their work in the public interest, and it is in that spirit of furthering the public interest, coupled with that sweet reasonableness which is always characteristic of us, that I ask this House to give us the Second Reading of this Bill, with or without a Division.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Commitee of the Whole House, for Thursday.—[Mr. Mathers.]

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Major Milner in the Chair]

Resolved:

"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session dealing with supplies and services and with the control of prices and charges, it is expedient—


(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act, and any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act in any sums authorised or required by any other enactment to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament; and


(b) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums which, in consequence of the passing of the said Act, are recovered under Section two of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Ede.]

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ACCOMMODATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Edwards: The point I wish to raise on this occasion concerns the status of Members of Parliament. I gave notice to the Prime Minister that I would raise certain points and he has arranged for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works to give me a reply. What I am concerned about is the fact that those of us who are elected to this House have an idea that we are elected to the highest office in the land, but when hon. Members have been in this House as many years as I have, they will find themselves constantly humiliated, and put in a lower position than they imagined they have earned by being elected to Parliament. I want to put it to those hon. Members who come here as newcomers, that they will be very wise to endeavour to establish their status as Members of Parliament. They will find that they have certain rights, and the authority is not a Government official. The authority is the membership of this House. Sometimes, when we speak of the inconveniencies with which we have to contend, we get replies that certain things cannot be done. I hope that the House will agree that there is nothing which cannot be done if this House says it shall be done. These permanent officials will just have to change their ground. The Leader of the House has assured us that we could expect from the Government something different from the lethargy we have had from other Governments.
Let us start from the day when the new hon. Members arrived in London. Many could not find a place to sleep on the

night when they arrived here. When a certain Ministry went to another town, places were requisitioned in order to see that its officials were comfortably housed, steps were taken to see that they were properly fed and, on many occasions, to see that people were properly transported. Nothing whatever was done to see that Members of Parliament coming to this House, the highest office to which any citizen of this Empire can be elected, were properly provided for. New Members will find that, if they want to receive visitors in this House, there is no place where they can take them. There was, until to-day, no place to which one could take them with a certainty of being able to give them any refreshment. I notice that the arrangements to-day are a little better. There is no place where Members can do a little work, and here I want to establish this fact once and for all—there is a point of difference between this House and every previous Parliament. Hitherto, men have not come here as a body to do serious work. On this occasion, a majority of this House has come down here trained for a job, and this is the first time that a majority has come into Parliament thoroughly trained for the job they have been elected to do.
Are we who come here, ready and prepared to work, to tolerate impediments being put in the way of carrying out our duty day after day? I have said that hon. Members have the right to demand these things, and I think they would be very wise from the outset if they did demand them. New Members who journey to the lower regions of this House will find dozens of rooms, not quite as comfortable as they would like, but rooms where one could work. I challenge them to find, at any one time, more than three or four of these rooms occupied, though every door has on it the name of some Minister or junior officer. I see no reason why a certain number of officials should not use these rooms, but no reason at all why we should not use the others. Hon. Members will find rooms day after day, week after week, month after month, with nobody in them.
Then there is this question of postage. We are officers of the Crown, but new Members of this House will find that they will have to dig deeply into their pockets to pay their postages. Why? The only answer we have had in this House is that


some of us may use that privilege to post our private and business letters. Certainly, the permanent officials say that. Even if we are no better than they imagine us to be, if we are of the very lowest standard and are so mean as to use the position to which we have been elected to save ourselves a few shillings a week, it is still infinitesimal. The sum total of money spent by hon. Members of this House on Government business is enormous, and I suggest to hon. Members that they should say at the beginning of this Parliament that they want changes. If they leave it to continue without protest, the permanent officials who get into the habit of not doing to-day what they can leave until to-morrow, will not do anything.
On the point of secretarial assistance, if hon. Members can find the place where this is available to them, they will also find that their slender salary will be considerably reduced by the time they have paid the bill. I have had the privilege of visiting other countries. I very frequently go to the Senate House of the United States Congress, where I am entertained by ordinary Members like ourselves. I am received by the Member's personal secretary and taken into a most beautiful office, which is merely the secretary's office, and later into another and more beautiful office when the Member is ready to receive me. Why should we, Members of the Mother of Parliaments, be constantly humiliated by having to go to some back corner? We are told that anything is good enough for us if we are only back benchers—those people who might sneak a few postage stamps for their private letters. Why should we tolerate it? When you have been here a few years, it is too late to do anything. You get used to this. That is why I appeal now to the new Members and say that here are well-trained men in politics who have a vital job of work to do for the nation, who should demand the facilities which would be given in any decent business. Why should I have here conditions which I would not allow my own employees to tolerate for a moment? There is no reason on earth. It is the duty and privilege of hon. Members to see that these things are altered at the very outset.
I do not want to exaggerate the position but I would like to tell the House

one or two of my personal experiences whilst working for this House. I had the privilege of being appointed on the War Expenditure Committee—a very important Committee. We could not discuss the finances of the war in this House during the war, and this work was delegated to a Committee of 33 Members, I think, who had powers to investigate war expenditure. We could go anywhere, into any Department, call for anyMinister—nothing was outside our powers. Of course, we had our expenses paid. We used to have these collected for us afterwards by the Clerk of our Committee. I remember being in a town where my expenses were rather high. I paid my bill and handed it to the Clerk, asking him to collect it for me. He came back and said, "I am very sorry; the Treasury will not pass this." I said, "The Treasury will not pass it? They are not masters of the House of Commons. I have been on House of Commons business and that is what I have spent on the authority of the Houses of Parliament. That is the money I want—nothing more and nothing less." He reported to the Treasury but the Treasury were still on their high horse and said, "We are very sorry but the most that could be allowed would be the expenses of a first-class civil servant." I said to the Clerk, "You can go back and tell them that I am not a first-class civil servant; I am a Member of Parliament and those expenses were incurred on behalf of the House of Commons. That is the money I want." We argued the point for a long time.
The Treasury has no authority over this House, but it acts as though it had. I have never known a difficulty in any Department during the war—I could tell the House about a lot of them—which did not come back to the point: "I am very sorry, but the Treasury will not allow this." Are they the dictators of this country? The answer is that they are the absolute dictators of this country. It is the responsibility of this House, at least, to insist on a full investigation as to what powers belong to the Treasury. They tell us we cannot have this postage, we cannot have secretarial assistance, we cannot have a room, we cannot have anything. Believe me, it is time that this House took the power which belongs to it into its own hands, utilised it, and told the Treasury that it is the servant of this House and


not the master. In the end I compromised on the problem I have just related, although I did not intend to do so. Even the Treasury give way when a Member of Parliament insists. They said, "The Treasury have agreed to increase the allowance from 23s. to 30s. a day." I said that as a service to the permanent officials I would accept it. I thought that was worth while.
May I tell the House one other thing? About 10 or 12 of us used to travel from the North of England, some from Scotland. There came a time during the war when some sleeping cars had to be cut off. The first people to be denied priority were Members of Parliament and we had the ignominy of travelling backwards and forwards sitting up all night while junior Ministers from Government Departments had the sleepers. Naturally we protested, and at last the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport addressed the group of Members from the North and said, "I have a concession at last. In future, no officer beneath the rank of colonel will have priority over Members of Parliament." That is the spirit of the Treasury. I said, "That is adding insult to injury. Take it from us—I speak for my group—we accept no priority from anybody—from a general or a Member of the House of Lords, or anybody. There is no priority in this land which comes before Members of this House. It is our responsibility to see that we establish it." Only after very severe protests did they give us our priority and we have had no trouble since.
I relate that to show that we can get what we want if we insist upon it. Why should we go on in this ignominious way? Perhaps it is a bit early to say this, but I will do so for the benefit of some junior Ministers. Junior Ministers have the right, or should have the right, to use motor cars. I sometimes wish we could borrow a few for Members for we stand out in the courtyard a long time waiting for taxis some nights. Recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent a notice round to our Ministers which stated that they must not expect in future to use the motor cars which had previously been at their disposal though they might be fortunate in drawing one from the pool. That was never done to Conservative Ministers. Are we going to accept that? Is there some difference between the Ministers in this Parliament and the last?
I have never heard of such a thing happening before. That is the way we are treating our Ministers. Surely people like us, elected to do a job of work here, are not going to put our Ministers in that ignominious position? Of course we would not, but the permanent officials do and the Treasury do.
I have said enough, I think, to satisfy the House that this is a really serious matter. The privileges of this House have grown up over centuries, they have been hardly won, but in recent years we have been letting them disappear very lightly. I do hope this House will take a stand and insist that there must be dignity and status accorded to the Members of this House which ranks second to nobody in the land. That is our position. We are elected on that understanding. Will this House insist that the Government immediately set on foot an inquiry into this matter and report back to this House?

8.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. H. Wilson): I am not sure whether in making a maiden speech from what is, I think, an unusual part of the House one is entitled to ask for its indulgence. Probably I am not entitled to ask for it, though on this occasion I feel the need for it even more than many of my colleagues who were elected to Parliament for the first time in the recent Election. They, at least, have spoken with great authority on the subjects which they have chosen and, although I find myself speaking from a part of the House where one is expected to speak with authority—though I am told this has not always been the case—I am called on to deal with a subject which even veteran Members of this House would enter upon only with very great trepidation—the important question of the amenities and facilities provided for private Members of this House.
May I say that, speaking as one of the new young Members to whom my hon. Friend referred, I share, as we all do, their desire to see Parliament work as efficiently as it is possible for it to work. My hon. Friend raised a number of points with some of which I am not competent to deal. For instance, he raised the question of the Treasury for which I am, perhaps fortunately, not answerable. He raised also the question of postage which I know is inflicting very serious


concern on a number of hon. Members, and I will undertake to see that what he said is brought to the notice of the authorities concerned. I think that all I can properly reply to is this question of the allocation of rooms for which the Ministry of Works is partly responsible, and also the subject he mentioned at the beginning, namely, the provision of accommodation in London for Members who have, so far, had difficulty in finding it.
With regard to the amenities of Members within this House, the Government and all the authorities concerned are trying to do everything possible to improve them so that Members can do their job as efficiently as possible. I know how important this is in the matter of facilities for dictating letters and interviewing the general public. Members who have had greater experience than I have told me that in the past few weeks the amount of correspondence they have received has been very much greater than they can remember in the past. Certainly, those Members who have had an opportunity, during the recent Recess, of refreshing themselves by visiting their constituencies, or living in them, can testify to the desire of the public, greater than ever before, to see their Member of Parliament and discuss with him questions of private or public importance. I believe that the confidence of the public in Parliament as an institution, and in Members as individuals; is perhaps greater now than at any time in the past.
The Government are most desirous that all possible facilities shall be given for adequate meetings, and for free and frank discussion between Members and the public. My hon. Friend referred to facilities which have been provided in other parts of the world. I, too, have seen the lavish scale on which Congressmen and Senators in the United States for instance, can entertain members of the public. As the House will know, provision is being made, when the Chamber is rebuilt, for additional amenities for Members, particularly for interviewing and the dictation of letters. In order that those who are charged with the duty of building the new Chamber shall be kept informed of what is required, I am asked by my right hon. Friend to say that it is his intention to carry out the proposal made by his predecessor to appoint a panel of private

Members to advise him on any questions of lay-out which may arise in the course of that work.

Mr. McAllister: Is it the intention of the Government to allow this new House to discuss the reconstruction of the old Chamber? Complaints were made in the last Parliament that the new Chamber would not provide seats for all Members, and I would like to know whether the Royal Fine Arts Commission will again be consulted on this and other matters?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend has raised a rather wide question, which I will bring to the attention of the Leader of the House, and to which he will not expect me to reply now. With regard to rebuilding, that will not help in the immediate future. Although demolition work is well advanced and should be complete in a few weeks, and work on the foundations will soon be started, the rebuilding of the Commons Chamber, I am told, will not be complete until 1949. In the meantime, we should like to do everything possible to meet the requirements of Members, but we have to admit that the difficulties are very great. Accommodation has been very strained during the war, and was so before the war, and we have now lost a further 16 rooms mainly because of demolition work. Rooms which were previously used for A.R.P. purposes have become available to us, but have been absorbed in making good, or partly making good, the loss of other rooms. Further, we have provided additional accommodation for the refreshment of hon. Members which, I hope, they will have noted with satisfaction to-day. My hon. Friend suggested that more use should be made of the rooms allocated to Ministers. But Ministers, too, have suffered from cramped accommodation, and are suffering now. I have gone carefully through the list of all the rooms occupied by Ministers now, and I find that most Ministers are, in fact, sharing rooms except in special circumstances.

Mr. Mikardo: Will my hon. Friend tell us why he assumed that the provision of office accommodation for Members must necessarily be within this building? Could not nearby buildings be used? If we all held the rank of colonel I am sure that a block of offices would soon be commandeered for us.

Mr. Wilson: I did not assume that it would have to be within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I was coming to that point in a moment. With regard to Ministers' rooms which are within the precincts of this building, Ministers now have only the same number of rooms as were available to Ministers in 1939, although the number of Ministers in this House has increased. It is clearly undesirable that Ministers should have to share rooms, particularly when one considers the extent to which those charged with important legislation will wish to meet deputations and discuss that legislation with them. Careful attention is being given to the provision of meeting accommodation in the immediate future. I have studied the report of the Joint Select Committee of this House and another place, which was appointed nearly 18 months ago to inquire into accommodation in the Palace of Westminster. There are proposals that certain accommodation over St. Stephen's entrance should be repaired and made available for the use of Private Members, and that some use should also be made of the Victoria Tower. These are attractive proposals, and everything possible will be done to carry them out, but at the moment an acute shortage of labour and materials makes this extremely difficult unless we are prepared—which we are not—to interfere to an undue extent with the housing programme. At the same time, to add to the limited facilities which are available, the Reporters' Transcribing Room—the Long Room—has been converted to a room for the use of Private Members and their secretaries. Going a little further a field, there are rooms in Old Palace Yard which could be used by Members for meetings, and some might be partitioned into smaller rooms.

Mr. A. Edwards: If my hon. Friend will look at the Ministers' rooms he will find that not one out of 12 is used at any time, and that no Minister uses his room for more than one hour a day and probably not for one day out of six. I think he has been misled.

Mr. Wilson: I cannot speak as to what use was made of Ministers' rooms in the previous Parliament, but there is every reason to believe, certainly from the views expressed to me by Ministers, that such rooms will be used far more in the immediate future than in the past, particularly because of the legislative programme to which I have referred.
With regard to the question of going further a field, I have already mentioned Old Palace Yard. I think further consideration could be given to the question of providing additional facilities for hon. Members, but, as I have said, not within the precincts of the Palace. With these exceptions, it is very difficult to do anything under present conditions. I should like to refer to the extremely difficult problem of finding living accommodation in London, which, I know, has caused very great worry and, indeed, hardship to many Members, particularly the newer Members. They have had, and I believe are still having, great difficulty in finding suitable accommodation within travelling distance of the House at the present time. The suggestion has been made that accommodation should be reserved for Members. I think it was suggested that requisitioning might be applied.
I am advised that, so far as the war-time powers are concerned, it would not be possible to use these for requisitioning for Members of Parliament and I believe that the powers which have been discussed earlier to-day could not be used in that way. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend has asked me to say that, if evidence is produced to him, as I am sure it may be produced, of hardship which Members are still having in getting accommodation, and if he can be satisfied there would be adequate demands for the regular use of any additional accommodation that could be provided, he would be prepared to see whether we can get it, not by requisitioning but by some other means. I understand that at the present time certain inquiries are being made by organisations, which are not connected with the Government, in order to get such accommodation, but my right hon. Friend is certainly willing to look into further accommodation for Members, if he can be satisfied that accommodation will be used, and, of course, that it can be self-supporting.

Mr. A. Edwards: Would my hon. Friend, refer to the Minister himself for evidence? I understand that he himself a short time ago could not find accommodation and was driven to a room in his Ministry.

Mr. Wilson: We are aware that many hon. Members are having very great difficulty, and, are indeed, suffering hardship


on this question, but we know also that many Members who were suffering hardship in August, have now found accommodation for themselves, and my right hon. Friend who was in such a difficulty has, I believe, made some arrangement of that kind. He is certainly prepared to inquire into this question and to see whether, for instance, we might be able to find some war-time hostel and make it available for the use of Members, provided that satisfactory arrangements can be made about finance, provisioning and other things. I hope hon. Members who are having difficulty of that kind will make their difficulties known to my right hon. Friend in order that steps can be taken.

Mr. Montague: I am glad this question has been raised, because it involves some very important constitutional points that affect the legislation of this country and the interests of the electorate. I cannot see that the Minister has at all touched upon the essential points in the complaint introduced by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. Edwards). May I put the issue in this way? It is perfectly true at the present time, as a result, I suppose, of the excitement of the General Election and the end of the war, that we have a much bigger correspondence than we had previously. But even the normal correspondence is pretty heavy. Members of Parliament have to pay for the postage—the ordinary public does not generally understand that—but it is true. I do not, however, want to put forward the point of expense at the moment. Every M.P., in these times particularly, is regarded by his constituents as a father confessor, a poor man's lawyer, and a citizens' advice bureau.
Last night I attended a meeting in my own constituency at which I had a queue of people wanting advice and assistance in connection with their personal problems, and some of these were very involved indeed. The Member has to master each of these cases. He comes to this House, and he may have as many as 200 to 300 letters a week. I do not get so many, because I represent a London constituency, and can get down to my constituency, and see my constituents on the spot, but some of the provincial Members have a very large postage bag indeed.
That means that every letter has to be mastered so far as understanding the individual problem is concerned, and at least two letters have to be written, one in acknowledgment and one to the Minister—three letters in fact, because you have to write a final reply to the constituent. So there are some of us in this House who have to write 300, 400 or 500 letters a week—some, not all, nor the majority, I am putting an extreme case.
But the burden is very heavy even where it is lightest, and no one objects to it. We are not allowed secretarial assistance. We have always said, from this side of the House at any rate, that this place should not be the privilege of merely well-to-do persons. It ought to be a democratic assembly, but as it stands to-day the well-to-do person can afford one, two or three secretaries—I know one Member on this side of the House who has three secretaries working for him and he can do it out of his private income—and others cannot do anything of the kind and have to spend hour after hour in the Library, painfully writing letters and attending to individual cases, the details of which could in many cases be left to a private secretary.
This is my final point, and I put it to the House and to the country—and I hope that the newspapers will take note of what I say about this because it is really important. What it amounts to is this: A very large percentage of this House are doing the complex job of governing this country in their spare time. Let the country understand that. People talk about Members of Parliament going on holiday, but I have been to three theatres on my holiday, and I have spent most of it reading through piles of White Papers and dealing with Parliamentary problems. One works here sometimes 24 hours a day because you dream about it. Yet people think that Members of Parliament have an easy job at an extravagent salary, and that it is a fine thing indeed. It is nothing of the kind.
Until there is secretarial assistance and some one at the back of Members of Parliament to allow them to do the routine work, in the same way as a manager of a department or of a private firm, we are not going to have this country governed as efficiently as it ought to be governed. Something has to go, and the constituents are pretty determined that they are not


going to allow Members of Parliament to go because they badger them all the time. The trouble is that Members are overworked, and they have to leave vital questions of State and of the Government and Empire generally to odds and ends of time which they can spare. Let the country understand that, and let this

House be ashamed of itself for allowing the greatest Government in the world and the Mother of Parliaments to be controlled in such a fashion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Eight o'Clock.